Oral dismissal of a writ petition by the Punjab and Haryana High Court where employees sought regularization and reclassification of努力提高 vehicles owned by them. The Court held it cannot make rules or policies for individuals and dismissed the appeal.
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 FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.11770 of 1995 Date of Decision.02.09.2013
Sukhmander Singh and others
.......Petitioners
Versus
Union of India through its Secretary and others
......Respondents
Present: Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Rupinder K. Khosla, Advocate for UOI.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
are seeking for regularization and mobility of rehras and marutas owned by the petitioners and to bring it within the definition of Motor Vehicles Act. It is not possible for a Court to make a rule or policy nor to direct
the State to make such Rule or Policy for the sake of the petitioners.
petition is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE
September 02, 2013 Pankaj*
Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.09.04 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Sukhmander Singh and others
Union of India through its Secretary and others
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
