Rajesh Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rajesh Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before respondent No.6-Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak qua redressal of his grievance; respondent No.6 to consider the representation and pass an appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the notification dated 01.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) reserving Ward No.2 of Municipal Corporation, Rohtak for Scheduled Caste Category should be allowed. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of, without commenting on merits, with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before respondent No.6-Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak qua redressal of his grievance.

Key takeaways

In case such an application/representation is made by the petitioner, respondent No.6 shall consider the same and pass an appropriate reasoned order, in accordance with law.ratio¶22
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Coram: Justices Sudhir Singh and Sukhvinder Kaur), CWP-1324-2025 (O&M), decided February 25, 2025: The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the notification dated 01.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Urban Local Bodies Department, whereby Ward No.2 of the Municipal Corporation, Rohtak was reserved for the Scheduled Caste Category. Since the election process for the concerned Municipal Corporation was already underway, learned State counsel submitted that the writ petition had become infructuous and no substantive relief could be granted; counsel for the petitioner did not dispute this but sought liberty to move a representation before respondent No.6-Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak for redressal of his grievance. Without commenting on merits, the Court disposed of the petition granting such liberty, directing that respondent No.6 consider the representation and pass an appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law; pending applications, if any, also stood disposed of.

CWP-1324-2025 (O&M)

116 (1^st case) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-1324-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: February 25, 2025

Rajesh

….Petitione r

versus

State of Hary a na and others

….Respondent s

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

Present: - M r. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advoca t e for the petitioner. M r. Samarth Sagar, Additional A G Haryana.

SUDHIR SINGH, J. (ORAL)

P etition herein is for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorar i for quashing t he notification dated 01.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by th e Commissione r and Secretary to Government o f Haryana, Urban Local Bodie s Department, w hereby Ward No.2 of the Mu n icipal Corporation, Rohtak ha s been reserved for Scheduled Caste Category.

A t the outset, learned State coun s el submits that as the process o f election in r e spect of the concerned Mu n icipal Corporation is alread y underway, th e refore, the instant writ petition has become infructuous, and n o substantive re l ief can be granted to the petitio n er.

F aced with the situation, learne d counsel for the petitioner doe s not dispute th e aforesaid; he, however, subm i ts that a liberty may be grante d

1 of 2

MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.03.03 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CWP-1324-2025 (O&M)

to the petitioner to file a representation before respondent No.6-Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak for redressal of his grievance, and the same be decided at the earliest.

Learned State counsel submits that in case, any such representation is moved by the petitioner, respondent No.6 shall take decision either way on the same.

Without commenting on merits of the case, the petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before respondent No.6-Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak qua redressal of his grievance. In case, such an application is made by the petitioner, respondent No.6 shall consider the same and pass an appropriate reasoned order, in accordance with law.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(SUDHIR SINGH) JUDGE

(SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE

February 25, 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

2 of 2

MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.03.03 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment