Disposed

Vijay Bansal v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2018CWP/13653/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a PIL seeking steps to protect farmer crops in Shivalik Foot Hill Range. The court granted liberty to withdraw the petition subject to filing a representation and directed the authority to decide it within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to withdraw petition; liberty granted to file a representation to be decided by respondent within two months with opportunity of hearing.

Vijay Bansal Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 13653 of 2018 Decided on : 28.05.2018

Vijay Bansal

. . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and another

¶7

. . . Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

¶10

PRESENT: Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶11

¶12

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, A.C.J. (Oral)

¶13

The petitioner has approached this Court by way of Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus , directing the respondents to take effective steps to protect the crops of the farmers in Shivalik Foot Hill Range.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a representation (Annexure P-4) had been filed on 19^th January, 2015, but no action thereon has been taken so far. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition at this stage. He, however, prayed that liberty be granted to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority by incorporating the grievance as raised in the present writ petition and direction be issued to the authority concerned to decide the representation expeditiously in a time bound manner in accordance with law.

¶15

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, we dispose of the present petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed

¶16

Jawala Ram 2018.05.31 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CWP No. 13653 of 2018

¶18

- 2 -

¶19

and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas as raised in the present writ petition, before competent authority. It is, however, clarified that in case such a representation is filed, the same shall be decided by the respondent authority within a period of two months, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law.

¶20

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶21

May 28, 2018 J.Ram

¶22

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE

¶23

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶24

Jawala Ram 2018.05.31 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Vijay Bansal v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Bansal v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Christian Welfare Society Vs State of Punjab etc.

Ram Shah & Others Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gursewak Singh Jawaharke Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Sardar Associates Private Limited Vs Union of India and Others

Anil Kumar and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others