The petitioner's writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on the grounds that the term of the Committee had already expired, a fact not controverted by the respondents.
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. 8879 of 2011
Date of decision : 21.01.2014
Vinod Kumar
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana & ors.
....Respondents
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. S.S. Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG Haryana.
Mr. R.S. Sihag, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 4.
RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)
Mr. Dalal submits that present writ petition has been
rendered infructuous as term of the Committee has already expired.
Aforesaid contention is not controverted by counsel
representing the respondents.
In view of above, this petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
January 21, 2014 Ajay
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
Kumar Ajay 2014.01.21 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Vinod Kumar
State of Haryana
RAJAN GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
