The High Court held that a writ petition against the decision of the Deputy Registrar was not maintainable as an alternative remedy was available. The petitioner pressed no issue and was granted liberty to avail the alternative remedy.
Liberty granted to avail the alternative remedy; petition pressed no further.
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.
SHIVANI GUPTA 2020.01.29 14:04
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 2354 of 2020 Date of decision: 29.01.2020
Darshan Singh and others
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
Admittedly, the appeal lies against the decision of the Deputy
Registrar.
In such circumstances, once the petitioner has an alternative remedy against the impugned order dated 13.12.2019 (Annexure P-4), the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the settled position of law in
United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon, 2010 (8) SCC 110.
Faced with this situation, counsel does not press the present
petition and prays for liberty to avail alternative remedy.
Ordered accordingly.
29.01.2020 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Darshan Singh and others
State of Punjab and others
G.S. Sandhawalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
