An oral judgment dismissing a writ petition filed under Article 226. The court held no order was required as there were no threat perceptions or grievances raised by petitioners.
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.
2023:PHHC:103756
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
211
CRWP-5136-2021 Date of Decision: 10.08.2023
Bir Singh and another ......... Pe��oners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:Mr. Gourav Kumar, Advocate for the pe��oners.
Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate for erspondent No. 5.
ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL)
The present pe��on has been filed under Ar�cle 226 of the Cons�tu�on of India for direc�ng respondents No. 2 to 4 to protect the life and liberty of the pe��oner and to restrain respondent No. 5 from harassing or interfering in the life of the pe��oner.
date, there is no threat percep�ons and even the pe��oners did not contact them for any such grievance.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE
10.08.2023
Jyo�-II
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
JYOTI 2023.08.11 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bir Singh and another
State of Haryana and others
Anoop Chitkara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
