Disposed

Sinder @ Polu and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Feb 2015CWP/2591/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners alleged violation of 2008 Government Policy regarding plot allotment by Gram Panchayat, with ineligible beneficiaries included and eligible BPL persons denied. Court avoided merits and directed a fact-finding enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal to entrust enquiry to senior officer and take action based on the report within three months.

Sinder @ Polu and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.2591 of 2015 Date of Decision: February 16, 2015

¶3

Sinder alias Polu and others versus

¶4

State of Haryana and others

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH.

¶8

Present:Mr.Vijay Singh Kajla, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶9

-.-

¶10

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

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

¶14

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶15

The grievance of the petitioners in the instant writ petition is that 100 square yard plots have been allotted by the respondent-Gram Panchayat in total violation of the terms and conditions contained in the Government Policy dated 01.02.2008 (Annexure P-1) and most of the beneficiaries are those who are ineligible. It is also their case that the petitioners who are living below poverty line and are fully eligible for such allotment, have been denied the benefit of the aforesaid Government Policy.

¶16

The petitioners are said to have also made a representation dated 12.01.2015 (Annexure P-2) to the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal in this regard.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and considering the nature of relief sought by them, however without expressing any views on the merits of the allegations

¶18

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.03.04 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CWP No.2591 of 2015 [2]

¶20

at this stage, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal to entrust the enquiry to some fairly senior officer of the district administration and based upon such fact-finding eqnuiry report, take the necessary action as may be required in accordance with law.

¶21

Let the needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶22

Ordered accordingly. Dasti.

¶23

[SURYA KANT]

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

February 16, 2015 [RAJ MOHAN SINGH]

¶26

Mohinder JUDGE

¶27

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.03.04 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Sinder @ Polu and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sinder @ Polu and Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Real Estate Enterprises P Ltd. Vs Director Rural Development & Panchayat Pb. & Ors.

Balak Ram Alias Govind and Ors. Vs Commissioner-Cum-Secretary Rehabilitation and Ors.

Mangat Ram Vs Chief Canal Officer & Ors.

Sardul Singh & Ors. Vs Financial Commissioner & Ors.

Vikram Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dalip Chand Vs Union of India and Others