Writ petitioner sought directions for deciding a representation. The Court observed that a memo dated 03.05.2013 had already rejected the matter. Holding the petition infructuous, it was disposed of.
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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 12997 of 2012 Date of Decision:- May 06, 2013
Dr. A.C. Nagpal
..............PETITIONER(S)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ...........RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
Present:Mr. Shailendra Jain Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate,
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
(Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge 06.05.2013 (G.S. Sandhawalia) shivani Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking directions to decide a representation becomes infructuous upon receipt of a memo rejecting the same.
Dr. A.C. Nagpal
State of Haryana
Ajay Kumar Mittal
G.S. Sandhawalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
