Dismissed

Ramesh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Sept 2015CWP/19460/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a Lokayukta report that declared the petitioner's claim of irregularities in BPL plot allotment as false. While no interference with the report was found at this stage, the Court directed a fact-finding enquiry regarding the petitioner's actual eligibility.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; directed Deputy Commissioner Rewari to order a fact-finding enquiry by B.D.P.O./other officer to determine petitioner's eligibility for BPL plots within three months.

Ramesh Vs State of Haryana and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.19460 of 2015 Date of Decision: September 15, 2015

¶3

Ramesh ....Petitioner

¶4

versus

¶5

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH.

¶7

Present: Mr.Vikas Lochab, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Kirti Singh, Deputy AG, Haryana.

¶8

-.-

¶9

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

¶13

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶14

Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 to 5 only at

¶15

this stage.

¶16

On our asking, Ms.Kirti Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General , Haryana, accepts notice on their behalf.

¶17

Let five copies of the writ petition be supplied to the State counsel during the course of day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶18

In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, it is not necessary to seek any counter-reply from respondent Nos.1 to 5 or to serve respondent No.6 at this stage as no order prejudicial to its interest is being passed.

¶19

The petitioner has laid challenge to the report given by the Lokayukta, Haryana dated 21.05.2014 whereby his claim alleging irregularities in allotment of 100 square yard plots to the persons living 'below poverty line' has been found baseless and false. The petitioner alternatively claims his

¶20

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.28 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

CWP No.19460 of 2015

¶22

[2]

¶23

inclusion in the list of eligible persons.

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any ground to interfere with the report of the Lokayukta, Haryana who has apparently opined on the basis of material produced before him.

¶25

However, the claim of the petitioner for inclusion in the list of eligible persons for allotment of 100 quare yard plots is a question of fact which can be enquired into by the authorities and if it is found that he fulfills such a criteria, there can be no rhyme or reason to discriminate against him.

¶26

In this view of the matter, we dispose of this writ petition without expressing any views on the eligibility or entitlement of the petitioner, with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Rewari to entrust the fact-finding enquiry to the B.D.P.O. and/or any other higher officer to determine whether the petitioner is eligible or not? If it is found that the petitioner fulfills the criteria prescribed in the Policy, the follow-up action shall also be taken. Needless to say that in the enquiry, the Gram Pancahyat or other respectables and stake-holders may also be associated. It is further directed that even if such equiry has already been held, the matter shall be re-enquired so as to satisfy the petitioner that complete justice has been done to him. Let the needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶27

Dasti.

¶28

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.28 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Ramesh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tehal Singh and Anr. Vs Joint Development Commissioner and Ors.

Sansara Vs Director Panchayat Punjab Chd and Ors.

Kiran Lata and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Mewa Devi & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Dharam Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Raghubir Vs State of Haryana and Ors.