Disposed

Mahipal Singh Malik and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Mar 2019CWP/7901/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge oral order granted a direction to the respondent Government of Haryana to decide a legal notice served by the petitioners within three months by passing a speaking order, without adjudicating the merits of the underlying claim.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to decide the legal notice served by petitioners within three months by passing a speaking order.

Mahipal Singh Malik and Others Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

CWP-7901-2019

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-7901-2019 Date of decision: - 25.03.2019

¶5

Mahipal Singh Malik and others

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

¶11

Present:Mr. S.K. Malik, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

¶13

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Present writ petition has been filed seeking restoration of Ad-hoc Relief, which was granted to the petitioners by the Government of Haryana.

¶15

In support of the claim, the petitioners are relying upon the judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.16084 of 1997 dated 27.07.2000 (Annexure P-4) and judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 8661 of 2009, dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure P-5).

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in order to claim the relief, as prayed in the present writ petition, the petitioners have served the respondents with legal notice dated 16.01.2019 (Annexure P-8) but the same has not been decided so far. Learned counsel states that the

¶17

NARESH KUMAR 2019.03.28 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CWP-7901-2019

¶19

-2-

¶20

petitioners will be satisfied, in case a time bound direction is issued to the respondents to decide their legal notice dated 16.01.2019 (Annexure P-8) served upon the respondents.

¶21

Without going into the merits of the case and without commenting upon the entitlement of the petitioners, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice dated 16.01.2019 (Annexure P-8) of the petitioners by passing a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶22

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶23

March 25, 2019 naresh.k

¶24

( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) JUDGE

¶25

Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes Whether reportable? No

¶26

NARESH KUMAR 2019.03.28 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Mahipal Singh Malik and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahipal Singh Malik and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjeet Singh Vs the Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.

(O&M)Murti Devi and Ors. Vs Kuldip and Ors.

Sukhbir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Gurcharan Singh Vs State of Punjab Thr Secretary Education and Anr.

Swaran Singh Vs Union of India and Others

Harbhajan Kaur Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Others