Disposed

Tejpal Singh v. Raj Kamal Choudhary and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Oct 2013COCP/1693/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition filed alleging non-compliance of a previous order directing Panchayat Department authorities to decide a representation within 30 days. Court found that the high court judges ordered to have complied after the Director filed an affidavit directing the release of pending payments. The contempt petition was disposed of as infructuous without prejudice to the rights of the petitione

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of as infructuous; rule against respondent No. 2 discharged.

Tejpal Singh Vs Raj Kamal Chou… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Raj Kumar Arora 2013.10.23 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶2

COCP-1693-2013 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

COCP-1693-2013 (O&M) Decided on: October 21, 2013.

Tejpal Singh

..... Petitioner

Versus

Raj Kamal Choudhary and others

¶9

..... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

¶11

PRESENT Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Anant Kataria, AAG., Punjab.

¶13

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Aggrieved by inaction on the part of respondentauthorities of Panchayat Department, the petitioner had filed a writ petition for consideration of his representation dated 10.1.2013. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the representation will be decided within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition alleging that the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 24.1.2013 have not been complied with.

¶15

Put to notice, the respondents have filed an affidavit of Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab along with order Annexure R1 dated 4.10.2013 passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, indicating that the

¶16

¶17

Raj Kumar Arora 2013.10.23 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

COCP-1693-2013 (O&M)

¶19

representation of the petitioner has been accepted and the Block Development and Panachayat Officer, Nabha, District Patiala, along with Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Dittupur, Block Nabha, District Patiala, have been directed to release the pending payments which are required to be made for the expenditure which was made in pursuance to the resolution dated 28.3.2012 to the firms from where the material was purchased after necessary deductions.

¶20

Mr.Akbar Ali, BDPO is present in the Court. He has also submitted his short reply on the same lines as that of respondent No.1.

¶21

In view of above circumstances, the order passed by this Court on 24.1.2013 has been complied with. The contempt petition is disposed of as having rendered infructuous without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to challenge the legality and propriety of order Annexure R1 in accordance with procedure of law.

¶22

The petition having been disposed of as infructuous, rule against respondent No.2, Akbar Ali, is also discharged.

¶23

October 21, 2013. JUDGE rka

¶24

Tejpal Singh v. Raj Kamal Choudhary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejpal Singh v. Raj Kamal Choudhary and 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

Ranbir Singh Vs Krishan Kumar

Baldev Singh Vs Uma Shankar and Anr.

Keshav Ram & Ors. Vs Registrar Coop Society Panchkula & Ors.

Kamlesh Vs Shashi Kant Sharma, Secretary Ministry of Defence, N.Delhi

Kashmir Singh Vs Suresh Kumar and Others

Hoshiar Singh Siwach Vs State of Haryana & Ors.