Disposed

Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority v. Permanent Lok Adalat and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Oct 2024CWP/5488/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Batch of three writ petitions by PUDA Bathinda challenging Permanent Lok Adalat awards was disposed of with parties' consent in terms of an earlier judgment dated 12.03.2024 in a batch including CWP-2626-2018.

What did the court decide?

All three writ petitions and pending misc. applications disposed of in terms of judgment dated 12.03.2024.

Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority Vs Permanent Lok Adalat and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

210(3 cases)

¶3

CWP-5488-2022 (O&M) CWP-15100-2022 (O&M) CWP-15322-2022 (O&M)

¶4

Date of Decision: 16.10.2024

¶5

PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PUDA) BATHINDA

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

PERMANENT LOK ADALAT AND ANR.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.

¶11

¶12

Present: Mr. Bhupinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶13

Mr. Vansh Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.2 in CWP-5488-2022.

¶14

Mr. K.B.S. Mann, Advocate for respondent No.2 in CWP-15100-2022 and CWP-15322-2022.

¶15

¶16

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

¶17

With the consent of counsel for respective parties, the present batch of three writ petitions is being decided by a common order, since the controversy involved therein is same.

¶18

Challenge in the present petitions is to the impugned Awards dated 24.08.2021 (in CWP-5488-2022) and 04.03.2022 (in CWPs-15100 and 153222022) respectively, passed by respondent No.1-Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services).

¶19

RAJENDER KUMAR 2024.10.20 03:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CWP-5488-2022 (O&M) + two cases -2-

¶21

Counsel for the respective parties are ad idem that the controversy involved in the present set of petitions is squarely covered by the judgment dated 12.03.2024 passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions including CWP-2626-2018 titled as “Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Through its Estate Officer Versus Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS) and another.” They further submit that they have no objection in case the present writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the said judgment.

¶22

In view of the above and with the consent of counsel for the respective parties, all the three writ petitions are disposed of in terms of judgment dated 12.03.2024 (supra).

¶23

All misc. application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly.

¶24

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) OCTOBER 16, 2024. JUDGE rajender Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶25

RAJENDER KUMAR 2024.10.20 03:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority v. Permanent Lok Adalat and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority v. Permanent Lok Adalat and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohtash Dass Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Another

Jaspal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

M/S Satpal Banarsi Das Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Another

M/S Maurya Syntex Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority Bathinda Vs Permanent Lok Adalat, Bathinda and Others

Punjab Urban Planning and Dev. Authority (Puda) Vs Permanent Lok Adalat, Bathinda and Others