The petitioner's counsel submitted that the writ petition has become infructuous. The single-judge bench dismissed the petition accordingly without substantive adjudication.
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
CWP No.4985 of 1992. Date of decision : 3rd July, 2013.
Surinder Singh Kushwaha
...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana & another
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present : Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
Mr. H. N. Mehtani, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
*******
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this petition
has been rendered infructuous.
In view of the statement made by learned counsel for petitioner, petition stands dismissed having been rendered infructuous.
( AJAY TEWARI ) 3rd July, 2013 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Surinder Singh Kushwaha
The State of Haryana
another
AJAY TEWARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
