Petition challenged a transfer order. State counsel argued the order was cancelled, rendering the petition infructuous.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.
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.16400 of 2015 Date of decision: 17.11.2016
Gurmeet Singh and others
..Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, DAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 4-State.
Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 6.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
The present writ petition has been filed to challenge the
transfer order.
In response to notice of motion, reply has been filed by State, which is on record.
Learned State counsel on the basis of reply submits that the order of transfer has been cancelled and the present writ petition has become infructuous.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as having
become infructuous.
| 17.11.2016 | (DAYA CHAUDHARY) | |
|---|---|---|
| neetu | Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable |
JUDGE √ Yes/No √ Yes/No |
Neetu Rani 2016.11.21 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Gurmeet Singh and others
State of Punjab and others
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
