Dismissed¶¶20

Chet Ram and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Oct 2025CWP/14692/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chowkidar regularization; writ of mandamus; dismissal for non-prosecution; counsel expired; no power of attorney; effluxion of time; petition rendered infructuous; loss of interest; liberty to file fresh application; Punjab and Haryana High Court; CWP-14692-1999; Arun Monga, J.; decision dated 19.12.2022.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application in case any cause of action still survives. ¶¶20

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application in case any cause of action still survives.

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners were entitled to a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize their services as Chowkidars with effect from 31.03.1993 instead of 31.01.1996. +1 more

¶¶12

Ratio / Principle

Despite specific notice in the cause list and on the notice board that listed matters would be decided regardless of counsel's presence, no one appeared for the petitioners and no power of attorney was filed; the Court was left with no choice but to dismiss the petition.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

Even otherwise, by sheer effluxion of time and pendency of the writ petition for more than 23 years before this Court, it had either been rendered infructuous or the petitioners seemed to have lost interest in pursuing it.ratio¶¶19
The petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application in case any cause of action still survives.ratio¶¶20
Any pending application, if any, was directed to also stand disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP-14692-1999, decided 19.12.2022) seeking a writ of mandamus for regularization of the petitioners' services as Chowkidars from 31.03.1993 instead of 31.01.1996, pending since 1999, dismissed for non-prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioners (Mr. I.D.Singla) had expired; although his son, an Advocate, appeared once out of professional courtesy without power of attorney, neither any power of attorney nor any representation was filed on the resumed hearing despite a specific notice in the daily cause list and on the Court notice board that listed matters would be decided regardless of counsel's presence. Held (Arun Monga, J.) that, in any event, by sheer effluxion of time and pendency of over 23 years, the petition had been rendered infructuous or the petitioners had lost interest in pursuing it. Petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application in case any cause of action still survives; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

355

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP-14692-1999 Date of decision: 19.12.2022

¶4

CHET RAM AND OTHERS ..Petitioners

¶5

¶6

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶8

Present: None for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

¶10

¶11

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Petition herein, inter alia , is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as Chowkidars with effect from 31.03.1993 instead of 31.01.1996.

¶13

Petition was admitted for hearing on 16.10.2001.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners i.e. Mr. I.D.Singla who had filed the petition is stated to have expired. On the last date of hearing i.e. 14.11.2022, his son Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate appeared out of professional courtesy though he did not have ‘power of attorney’ executed in his favour, he sought time to do the needful. On resumed hearing today, neither any ‘power of attorney’ has been filed nor is there any representation on behalf of the petitioners. In this context, it is important to note that a specific notice has been issued in the cause list, as well as on the notice Board of the Court

¶15

room, stating “ In the category of “To Be Taken UP” Regular matters

¶16

shown in the daily cause list, if learned counsel still do not appear, it would

¶17

VANDANA 2022.12.21 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

be an indicator that they are not interested in pursuing the same and the cases shall then be decided regardless of their presence. Learned counsels are, therefore, requested to watch the regular cause list of the Court.” Notwithstanding none appears. Court is left with no choice but to dismiss the petition.

¶19

Even otherwise by sheer effluxion of time and pendency of the writ petition for more than 23 years before this Court, either it has been rendered infructuous or else the petitioners seem to have lost interest in pursuing the same.

¶20

Be that as it may, dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application in case any cause of action still survives.

¶21

Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶22

(ARUN MONGA) JUDGE

¶23

December 19, 2022 Vandana Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶24

VANDANA 2022.12.21 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Chet Ram and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chet Ram and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Laxami Devi Vs Union of India and Others

Subhash Chand and Others Vs Union of India and Others

Amit Ahlawat Vs Indian Overseas Bank and Others

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Deepak Kumar Pandey and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Dr. Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another