Dismissed

Rohit Baluja v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 May 2012CWP/4376/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a public interest writ petition demanding completion of pipeline work at Badhkal-Surajkund Road. Finding the respondents had assured completion within a month and had seized of the issue, the judge held further intervention unnecessary and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the work is likely to be completed within a month's time.

Rohit Baluja Vs State of Haryana… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.W.P.No.4376 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

Date of decision : 17.5.2012

Rohit Baluja

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present : Mr.P.K.Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms.Sushma Chopra, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents.

¶12

Mr. Lokesh K.Sinhal, Advocate for the applicants.

¶13

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶14

C.M.No.1770 of 2012

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicants after arguing at some length prays for permission to withdraw the application with liberty to pursue his remedy that may be available to him keeping in view the fact that the civil court which is seized of the controversy raised by him has passed a restraint order which is being violated by the respondents. Permitted to do so.

¶16

Application is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid granted.

¶17

C.W.P.No.4376 of 2011

¶18

C.W.P.No.4376 of 2011 (O&M) -2-

¶19

The instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure resumption and completion of the work of laying RCC pipeline at Badhkal-Surajkund Road, Faridabad and passing in front of College of Traffic Management, located between Manav Rachna University and Modern Vidya Niketan School.

¶20

The respondents have stated that the work in this regard has been commissioned and is being undertaken in all earnestness. Once such a stand has been taken by the respondents and information given to the Court on 19.12.2011 that work is likely to be completed in a month's time, I am of the opinion that the writ petition does not need to be entertained any further. The respondents are seized of the problem of the petitioner and since they have commenced and undertaken the construction work, it is expected that it shall be taken to its logical end.

¶21

Petition stands disposed of.

¶22

17.5.2012 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE

¶23

dss

Rohit Baluja v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Baluja v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amarjeet Singh Vs Surina Rajan & Ors.

Jaskirat Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Bhupinder Singh Vs Chandigarh Administration & or.S

Realtech Construction Private Limited and Anr. Vs Fame India Limited

M/S Induction Furnace Association of North India Vs Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. (Pspcl)&Ors

Jagjeet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.