The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the civil writ petition for want of prosecution as neither the petitioner nor any representative appeared on the last date of hearing nor subsequently.
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
209 Civil Writ Petition No.19827 of 2015 Date of Decision: September 29, 2016
Basudev alias Vasudev
....Petitioner
versus
Chandigarh Administration and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Daman Dhir, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Bhavna Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.2.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
On the last date of hearing i.e. August 04, 2016, no one had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Even today, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
(RAMENDRA JAIN) September 29, 2016 JUDGE
sonia gugnani
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
Sonia Kinra 2016.09.29 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
Basudev alias Vasudev
Chandigarh Administration
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
RAMENDRA JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
