Ved Pal Mann and Others Vs Dr Poonam… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Ved Pal Mann and Others Vs Dr Poonam… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief to the appellants; they remain free to move a fresh application (including within the meaning of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India) or other suitable remedy, and the learned Single Bench is requested to examine any such fresh application on merits; all pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Division Bench ought to interfere with the learned Single Bench's order dated 23.04.2025 (allowing impleadment and fixing the vacation-of-stay application for 04.08.2025), passed on a day when lawyers were abstaining from work and the appellants' facts could not be placed before the Single Bench. +1 more

Court's answer

In the circumstances (lawyers' abstention on 23.04.2025 preventing the appellants' facts from being placed before the learned Single Bench), this Court need not interfere with the order dated 23.04.2025, but requests the learned Single Bench to examine a fresh application on merits, if so filed.

Ratio / Principle

Either a fresh application can be filed within the meaning of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India or a suitable remedy under law can be taken up; there is no bar to moving a fresh application.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

LPA dismissed. Appellants, impleaded in a pending writ petition before the learned Single Bench, showed that the Single Bench order dated 23.04.2025 - allowing their impleadment application and fixing the vacation-of-stay application for 04.08.2025 - was passed on a day when lawyers were abstaining from work, so the facts they wished to place could not reach the Single Bench. The Division Bench (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Meenakshi I. Mehta, JJ.) held that a fresh application can be filed within the meaning of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India or other suitable remedy taken under law, there being no bar to moving a fresh application; declined to interfere with the order dated 23.04.2025; requested the learned Single Bench to examine any fresh application on merits; and dismissed the LPA, disposing of all pending applications. Oral judgment; no precedent cited.

115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

LPA-1262-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:1^st of May, 2025

VED PAL M A NN AND OTHERS ..…...Appellant(s) V/s. DR. POONA M CHAUDHARY AND OTHER S .....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present: M r. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate f or the appellants.

M r. Manjeet Singh, Advocate fo r respondent No.1. M r. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)

1. M r. Manjeet Singh, Advocate a n d Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Harya n a have appeared before this C o urt on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 to 4 respectively.

2. L earned counsel for the appella n ts submits that application for impleadment of the appellants in the Writ Petition was allowed and the application f o r vacation of stay has been fixe d for 04.08.2025 on the day i.e. 23.04.2025, w hen the lawyers were abstain i ng from work and therefore, facts could n o t be brought to knowledge of t h e learned Single Bench which the appellant s wanted to place.

3. W e are of the firm view that in s u ch circumstances, either fresh application can be filed within the meani n g of Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India or suitable remedy u n der law can be taken up for moving fresh application as there is no bar fo r moving fresh application.

Suresh Kumar 2025.05.05 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA-1262-2025 (O&M)

Page 2 of 2

4. I n view thereto, we need not i nterfere with the order dated 23.04.2025, b ut request the learned Sing l e Bench to examine afresh application o n merits, if so filed.

5. I n view of the aforesaid observ a tions, the present LPA stands

dismissed .

6. A ll pending applications in this case are disposed of

accordingly.

[SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

[MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA] JUDGE

May 1, 2025

Ess Kay

W hether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No W hether Reportable : Yes / No

Suresh Kumar 2025.05.05 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document