Petitioners filed a petition but withdrew after the respondent-State filed a reply stating no apprehension existed. The court dismissed the petition as it was no longer pressed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM NO. M-12441 OF 2013 (O&M) DECIDED ON : 22.05.2013
Sajala and another
...Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI
Present : Mr. S. S. Duhan, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajesh Mehta, Additional AG, Punjab.
K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL)
Reply filed. It be taken on record.
Statements of both the petitioners have been placed
on file in which they have mentioned that they have no apprehension from the respondents.
In view of the reply filed by respondent-State, learned counsel for the petitioners do not want to pursue the present petition.
Dismissed as not pressed.
MAY 22, 2013 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE
Sajala and another
State of Punjab and others
K. C. Puri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
