Disposed

Neeraj v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2024CRWP/3988/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compliance with a prior writ direction to decide his parole application within a week; contempt proceedings had been closed on mis-information that the application was decided. The Court held only the District Magistrate recommended and the Divisional Commissioner decides parole, and directed a speaking decision within three days.

What did the court decide?

Divisional Commissioner directed to pass a speaking decision on the parole application within three days.

Neeraj Vs State of Haryana and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

2024:PHHC061886-DB

¶2

CRWP No.3988 of 2024

¶3

-1-

¶4

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶5

(102) CRWP No.3988 of 2024(O&M) Date of Decision: 06.05.2024

Neeraj

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶10

....Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA

¶12

Present: Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Saurabh Mago, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

¶14

¶15

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Earlier, the present petitioner had accessed this Court for actions for contempt being drawn against the respondents concerned for their purportedly disobeying the order rendered by this Court on 15.03.2024, upon CRWP No.2228 of 2024, Annexure P-2. A reading of the said order discloses that a mandamus was passed upon the respondent concerned, seized with the parole application Annexure P-1, to decide the same within a period of one week thereafter. The said order was passed on 15.03.2024, but when contempt petition bearing No.1288 of 2024 became filed, and, as arose from the respondents concerned purportedly disobeying the said order, thus the same, rather on the learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, producing before the learned Contempt Court, an order passed on 05.02.2024, whereby the parole application became dismissed, thereby the

¶17

DIWAKER GULATI 2024.05.08 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶18

CRWP No.3988 of 2024 -22024:PHHC061886-DB

¶19

said contempt petition was closed, given it having become rendered infructuous, on the ground that the parole application became already decided, rather even before the passing of Annexure P-2.

¶20

It appears that with the orders, becoming passed on CRWP No.2228 of 2024 on 15.03.2024 (Annexure P-2), thereby the learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, could well enlighten the Contempt Court, that no valid decision on parole application has been taken, and aptly so, as the decision recorded prior thereto, on the parole application, on 05.02.2024, thus as even submitted today by the learned Deputy Advocate General, rather was merely a recommendation by the District Magistrate concerned, to the authority concerned, hence empowered to take a decision, whereby it either accepts or rejects the said recommendation. Resultantly, Annexure P-2 became passed, merely for the empowered authority either accepting or rejecting the apposite declining recommendation.

¶21

Consequently, thereby it also appears that the filing of the contempt petition, though was an appropriate remedy, as it became instituted post the passing of an order on 15.03.2024, upon Annexure P-2, but yet the learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, Sh. Pawan Kumar Longia, intimated the Court that the said order on the parole application had already been passed on 05.02.2024. The said intimation made to the learned Bench seized with the contempt petition supra, appears to arise from a clear lack of awakenings, to the echoing made in the notification issued by the State of Haryana, whereby the ultimate decision is to be taken, on the parole application, thus by the Divisional Commissioner, and, not by the District Magistrate concerned, who but only makes a recommendation to the

¶22

DIWAKER GULATI 2024.05.08 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶23

2024:PHHC061886-DB

¶24

CRWP No.3988 of 2024

¶25

-3-

¶26

Divisional Commissioner concerned.

¶27

In consequence, the learned Single Bench seized with the contempt petition was led to believe the said statement and ultimately closed the contempt proceedings.

¶28

Conspicuously, the above is a sequel of complete misunderstanding of Annexure P-2 by the learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana namely one Sh. Pawan Kumar Longia, and also arises from his not being properly instructed, by the officer concerned, that the direction passed by this Court qua Annexure P-2, rather was to become complied by the Divisional Commissioner concerned, post the adverse recommendation as made, on the parole application, by the District Magistrate concerned, who as stated supra, was only a recommendatory authority and was not empowered to take a decision on the parole application.

¶29

Be that as it may, therebys contempt, if any, did rather arise from Annexure P-2, in as much as, thereby this Court on 15.03.2024 had directed the respondents concerned to, within a week, decide Annexure P-1, but till today the said decision remains unimplemented, whereas, rather only on a mis-intimation being made to the learned Single Judge, who was seized with the contempt petition, thus the contempt petition was closed, wherebys the petitioner becomes led to re-access this Court.

¶30

In consequence, the Court yet does not deem it fit and appropriate to, suo motu , issue any contempt notice upon the respondent concerned, as arises from the respondent concerned failing to, within a period of one week to be computed from 15.03.2024, make a lawful decision

¶31

DIWAKER GULATI 2024.05.08 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶32

2024:PHHC061886-DB

¶33

CRWP No.3988 of 2024 -4-

¶34

upon Annexure P-1. The reason being that the learned Additional Advocate General intimates this Court that the decision on Annexure P-1 shall be taken by the Divisional Commissioner concerned, after his making a profound application of mind qua whether the recitals made in Annexure P-1 are to lead him to accept the said recommendations or are to lead him to take a view contrary to the recitals embodied in Annexure P-1.

¶35

In view of the above, the instant petition is closed and the Divisional Commissioner concerned is directed to, within a period of three days from today, pass a speaking decision on Annexure P-1.

¶36

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶37

(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE

¶38

(LALIT BATRA) JUDGE

¶39

MAY 06, 2024 d.gulati Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶40

DIWAKER GULATI 2024.05.08 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Neeraj v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Musaib Kataria Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ajitpal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sham Lal and Others Vs Union Territory Chandigarh and Others

Kuldeep Singh Alias Keepa Vs State of Punjab

Hakam Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.