The court disposed of the writ petition as the matter had been complied with by a subsequent order dated 17.02.2017. No reasons were given.
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
COCP No.2390 of 2016 Date of decision: 23.02.2017
Prithvi Raj
..Petitioner
Versus
Parveen Thind ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Harpal Singh, Advocate for Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, DAG, Punjab for the respondent.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
Learned State counsel has filed reply in the Court and the same
is taken on record.
Learned State counsel submits that the parties were not properly impleaded and because of the fault on the part of the petitioner, direction was issued to respondent No.2 but he was not competent authority. Subsequently, the order was conveyed to the competent authority and the same has been complied with vide order dated 17.02.2017, which is annexed as Annexure R-1/T with the reply.
Since the order has been passed, nothing remains in the present
petition.
Disposed of accordingly.
However, in case, the petitioner is still aggrieved in any manner, he is at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy.
23.02.2017 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE √ Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No √ Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neetu Rani 2017.03.01 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Prithvi Raj
Parveen Thind
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
