Dismissed¶7

Punjab Welfare Society v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Apr 2025CWP/18832/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quo warranto writ petition (CWP-18832-2001 O&M, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, decision 25.04.2025) dismissed for want of prosecution; petitioner Punjab People Welfare Society unrepresented; petition pending since 2001 under Articles 226/227 Constitution of India against respondents No.3 to 6; respondents No.3, 5 and 6 retired on superannuation, respondent No.4 dismissed from service in 2018; information supplied on instructions of Legal Advisor, Municipal Council, Amritsar by State counsel Teevar Sharma, AAG; cause of action does not survive; pending applications disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The Court presumed that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the lis, as the cause of action does not survive. ¶6

Punjab Welfare Society Vs State of Punjab… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

CWP-18832-2001 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

(201) CWP-18832-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.04.2025

¶4

Punjab Peo p le Welfare Society

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

Vers u s

¶7

State of Pu n jab and others ...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

¶9

Present: None for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Teevar Sharma, AAG, Pu n jab.

¶11

¶12

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL)

¶13

Through the instant writ petiti o n, cast under Articles 226/227 of the Constit u tion of India, a prayer is made f or issuance of a writ, in the nat u re of quo-war r anto, against the respondents N o .3 to 6.

¶14

The instant writ petition is pen d ing adjudication since 2001. 3. This Court, on dated 24.03.2 0 25, had directed the learned S t ate Counsel to i nform this Court, as to whether, the respondents No.3 to 6, are s till in service, o r not.

¶15

Today learned counsel for t h e State, on instructions from t he Legal Ad v isor, Municipal Council, A m ritsar, informs this Court, t h at respondent s No.3, 5 and 6, has already ret i red from the service, on attain i ng age of sup e rannuation, whereas, the resp o ndent No.4, was dismissed fr o m service, in t h e year 2018.

¶16

There is no representation on b ehalf of the petitioner, today in t he MANPREET SINGH Court. Eve n , on the earlier occasions as well, the petitioner has remai n ed 2025.04.29 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶17

CWP-18832-2001 (O&M) 2

¶18

unrepresent e d.

¶19

At this stage, this Court, can s a fely presume that the petitione r is not interested in pursuing the instant lis, as the cause of action does n ot survive.

¶20