Writ petition challenging a resolution promoting a rival candidate as Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector. The Court was informed that both petitioner and respondent No.3 had since been promoted and retired. Holding no cause survived, the petition was disposed of.
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.
CWP No.12859 of 1998 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
204
CWP No.12859 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.08.2024
Amrit Lal
....Petitioner
Versus
Punjab Mandi Board and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari, quashing the Resolution No.2 dated 30.07.1998 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.2 whereby it was resolved to promote respondent No.3 as Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector.
There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and on the last date of hearing, the following order was passed:-
“On the last date of hearing, since no one appeared on behalf of the parties, therefore, notice was issued to the petitioner and respondents.
As per office report, notice issued to the petitioner and respondent No.2 has been duly served. Notice issued to respondent No.1 has been received back unserved with the report “office shifted from the given address” and notice
MOHD YAKUB 2024.08.13 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CWP No.12859 of 1998 (O&M)
2
issued to respondent No.3 has also been received back unserved with the report “retired from service”.
Since there is no representation on behalf of the parties, Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab is directed to get instructions from respondents No.1 and 2 as to whether the petitioner is still in service and whether he was promoted to the post of Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector.
Adjourned to 13.08.2024.”
Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, on instructions from respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector on 26.03.2007 and has retired as such on 31.01.2024. He further submits that respondent No.3 - Vinod Kumar was also promoted as Mandi Supervisor on 30.07.1998 and he retired as such, on 29.02.2008.
In this view of the matter, no cause survives in the present petition and the same is disposed of accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE
13.08.2024 yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
MOHD YAKUB 2024.08.13 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Resolution No.2 dated 30.07.1998 promoting respondent No.3 as Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector should be quashed.
Amrit Lal
Punjab Mandi Board
Namit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
