Dismissed
Mulkh Raj v. K.B.S. Sidhu & Ors.
Punjab & Haryana HCCOCP/1760/2013
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
of 2013 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND…
What the court decided
AI extract
of 2013 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
COCP No. 1760 of 2013
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
COCP No. 1760 of 2013
Date of Decision: November 13, 2013
Mulkh Raj
…..Petitioner
Vs.
K.B.S. Sidhu, IAS and others
…..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:Mr.R.D. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Hari Pal Verma, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner has filed this contempt petition claiming that the directions passed by this Court on September 26, 2012 requiring the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and decide the legal notice dated July 19, 2012 has not been considered by passing a speaking order.
Gupta Sanjay 2013.11.18 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
COCP No. 1760 of 2013
[2]
In the reply filed by Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam Project, Shahpurkandi Township, it has been informed that the claim of the petitioner has been considered as follows:-
“That in compliance to the order dated 30.8.2013, the claim of the petitioner namely, Sh. Mulkh Raj son of Bihari Lal son of Dhanu son of Khoju was considered on the basis of land verification report submitted by the Collector, Land Acquisition, Thein Dam Project, Basholi which is annexed as annexure R-1 (at Mark A Sr. No.10 of Annexure R-1 shows the acquired land of Khoju) and it has been found that the petitioner is eligible for employment but other two petitioners namely Sh.Ranu Ram son of Dhanu son of Khoju and Sh.Ganesh Kumar son of Ishwar Dass son of Dhanu son of Khoju are also claiming for employment from the same khata by filing of another Civil Writ Petition No. 16270 of 2011. As such, these petitioners have been asked to submit No Objection Certificate in favour of one member so that their claim can be considered for employment as Class IV employee as only one member of the family is to be provided employment under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy dated 18.11.1993. But till today no NOC has been received from the petitioners.”
Gupta Sanjay 2013.11.18 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
COCP No. 1760 of 2013
[3]
In view of the fact that the matter has been considered as above, the present contempt petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to submit no objection certificate and seek employment by availing the other remedy available to him.
November 13, 2013 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE
Gupta Sanjay 2013.11.18 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
Mulkh Raj
K.B.S. Sidhu, IAS and others
M.M.S. BEDI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court