Disposed

Satish Kumar v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2013CWP/11821/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner purchased a plot requisitioned by the CBI for an inquiry regarding alleged income tax and corruption charges. The court did not decide the merits but directed respondents to consider the petitioner's legal notice regarding mutation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's legal notice within two months from receipt of the order.

Satish Kumar Vs State of Punja… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.11821 of 2013 Date of Decision : May 28, 2013

Satish Kumar

.....Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.

¶9

Present : Mr.Prem Chand Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

-.-

¶11

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶16

The petitioner is said to have purchased a residential house-cum-plot No.2233 in Urban Estate, Phase-2, Dugri Road, Ludhiana vide sale deed dated 22.12.2005 from its previous owner Gurcharan Singh. After about seven years, the petitioner moved an application on 7.9.2012 for mutating the aforesaid house in his favour. The Estate Officer, Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority, Ludhiana, informed the petitioner on 11.9.2012 (Annexure P-8) that the record of the plot has been requisitioned by the C.B.I. in connection with an enquiry.

¶17

We find from the charge-sheet that the petitioner is facing trial in a case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC as well as under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶18

CWP No.11821 of 2013

¶19

[2]

¶20

Why the petitioner is so keen to get the house mutated in his favour after about seven years of its purchase is a mystery? He has not disclosed any convincing reason. Be that as it may, the petitioner has served respondent Nos.2 & 3 with a legal notice on 30.3.2013 (Annexure P-9).

¶21

We do not want to express any views on merits of the petitioner's claim. Let respondent Nos.2 & 3 consider and decide the petitioner's legal notice in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶22

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Dasti.

¶23

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶24

May 28, 2013 (R.P.NAGRATH) Mohinder JUDGE

Satish Kumar v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar v. State of Punjab 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

Ahmed & Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Manveer Kaur & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Harvinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Rameshwar Dass and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Sanjay Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rani Vs State of Punjab and Anr.