Petitioners sought directions to decide pending representations. Court noted respondents herein rejected representations and declared writ petition infructuous.
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. 14834 of 2012 Date of Decision:- May 06, 2013
Rajbir Singh and others
..............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, for HUDA.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
(Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge 06.05.2013 (G.S. Sandhawalia) shivani Judge
Rajbir Singh and others
State of Haryana and others
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
G.S. SANDHAWALIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
