The High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous because the respondent Board had dissolved and the respondent dealership holder had died, leaving no one to issue directions.
nil
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. 9680 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision : 04.02.2014
Dr. Abchal Singh
... Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Chetan Slathia, Advocate, for Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. M.S Rana, Advocate for Mr. Aashish Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)
The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for declaring the action of respondent No. 3 for proceeding to scrap the result and further reinterviewing the petitioner and others and consequently issuing letter of intent in favour of respondent No. 4
When the petition was admitted on 14.03.1995, no stay was granted in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, respondent No. 4 continued after the selection made by respondent No. 3 w.e.f 16.01.1995. The respondent No. 3-Board has now been dissolved and now is not in existence and no direction can be issued to respondent No. 3, respondent No. 4 has since been expired and after his death, the dealership is given to one Amit.
In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed as having
been rendered infructuous.
( RITU BAHRI) JUDGE
04.02.2014 G Arora
Arora Gaurav 2014.03.04 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Dr. Abchal Singh
Union of India
Amit
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
