Disposed¶18

Manmohan Singh Luthra v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jul 2025CWP/17562/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana HC, CWP-17562-2000 (O&M), Manmohan Singh Luthra v. State of Punjab, decided 07.07.2025 by Aman Chaudhary J. Writ petition seeking quashing of promotion orders dated 07.12.2000 appointing respondent Nos.3 and 4 as District Transport Officer; State's written statement dated 16.07.2001 denied petitioner's seniority and 12-year service completion as on 19.04.2006; no replication filed; petitioner's counsel absent. Petition disposed of with liberty to revive if the lis survives; merits not decided.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to get the petition revived by demonstrating that the lis still survives; no substantive relief granted on the merits. ¶18

Manmohan Singh Luthra Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

208

¶3

CWP-17562-2000 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.07.2025

¶4

Manmohan Singh Luthra

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others ...Respondents

¶8

**CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *******

¶9

Present : None for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Satnam Preet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.

¶11

Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶12

¶13

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)

¶14

Prayer made in the present petition for quashing the orders dated 07.12.2000, whereby respondent Nos.3 and 4 had promoted as District Transport Officer, might not, due to efflux of time, even be surviving.

¶15

Learned State counsel refers to the para 14 of the written statement dated 16.07.2001 filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, wherein denying the averments made on the corresponding para of the writ petition that petitioner was not senior amongst the persons who were considered and at that time did not complete 12 years of service as on 19.04.2006 for promotion to the post of District Transport Officer.

¶16

To the aforesaid facts, there was no rebuttal made by filing any replication.

¶17

Even otherwise as per office report, learned counsel for the petitioner has been informed through email, however, none has appeared on his behalf.

¶18

Disposed of, reserving the petitioner with a liberty to get it revived, by demonstrating that the lis still survives.

¶19

07.07.2025		(AMAN	CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
Hemant
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes	/ No
	Whether reportable	: Yes	/ No

¶20

HAMANT 2025.07.07 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Manmohan Singh Luthra v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manmohan Singh Luthra v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Similar cases

Dharam Singh Vs St Ofpunjab O

Prem Verma Vs Education Tribunal Punjab and Ors.

Jagseer Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rupinderjit Kahlon Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Surinderjit Sharma Ands Ors. Vs State of Punjab Andors

Pramod Kumar Singla Vs U.T.Chd.