Dismissed

Nikhil Saraf v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Aug 2021CWP-PIL/137/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CWP PIL No. 137 of 2021, the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, with Judge Arun Palli, disposed of a writ petition filed in person by Nikhil Saraf. Respondent counsel assured that authorities would consider pending representations. No reasons were recorded for dismissal, and the court expressly reserved its opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits; respondent authorities to examine the matter at liberty.

Nikhil Saraf Vs State of Punja… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP-(PIL)-137-2021 (O&M) Date of decision:- 06.08.2021

Nikhil Saraf

...Petitioner (s)

Versus

State of Punjab and others ...Respondent(s)

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI

¶8

Present: Mr. Nikhil Saraf (petitioner-in-person). Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No. 2.

¶9

Mr. Pankaj Jain, Senior Standing Counsel, with Mr. Anil Mehta, Additional Standing Counsel, for respondent No. 3 – U.T., Chandigarh.

¶10

(The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the proceedings are being conducted in

¶11

virtual Court)

¶12

¶13

RAVI SHANKER JHA, C.J. (ORAL)

¶14

The petitioner, who is appearing in person, submits that he has been forced to file this writ petition in view of the fact that the respondentauthorities have not taken any action on the representations dated 21.10.2019 (Annexures P-2 to P-4) and 10.04.2021 (Annexure P-15) filed by him.

¶15

At this stage, Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab; Mr. Deepak Balyan, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Pankaj Jain, learned senior standing counsel for the Union Territory, Chandigarh submit that the respondent-authorities shall consider and take a decision on the representations dated 21.10.2019 (Annexures P-2 to P-4) and 10.04.2021 (Annexure P-15) filed by the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four weeks, in case such representations are pending with the authorities.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid statement made by learned State counsel for Punjab and Haryana as well as learned senior standing counsel for the Union Territory, Chandigarh, we do not find any reason to entertain the present petition which is disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and, therefore, the authorities would be at liberty to examine the matter keeping all facts and facets into consideration in accordance with law.

¶17

(RAVI SHANKER JHA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶18

(ARUN PALLI) JUDGE

¶19

06.08.2021

¶20

Amodh

¶21

Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether reportable	Yes/No

¶22

AMODH SHARMA 2021.08.16 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Nikhil Saraf v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil Saraf v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gram Panchayat Village Manuke Vs State of Punjab and Others

Nawab Mohammad Iftikhar Ali Khan and Begum Munawar-Ul-Nisha Welfare Educational Society Malerkotla Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Vinod Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Parminder Singh Alias Soni Vs State of Punjab

Bhupinder Punj Vs State of Punjab and Others

Madhu Trading Hp Centre and Others Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others