Writ petition challenging cancellation of a transfer order, earlier stayed and made absolute by the High Court. Counsel could not obtain instructions from the petitioner; the court dismissed the petition for want of prosecution with liberty to revive it if any cause survives.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
201. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-6655-2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.05.2026
Ritu Sharm a
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Pu n jab and others
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Abhinandan Sekhri, Advo c ate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, AAG, P unjab.
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
“The challenge in the p resent petition is to the orde r dated 03.04.2008 (Annexure P -4) whereby the transfer orde r dated 31.03.2008 of the peti t ioner was cancelled. The sai d order was stayed by this Co u rt vide order dated 08.08.200 8 and further made absolute vide order dated 10.05.2010. Learned counsel for the parties seek an adjournment t o get instructions.
Adjourned to 26.05.202 6 .”
(NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE 26.05.2026 sanjeev Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
SANJEEV KUMAR 2026.05.27 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Ritu Sharma
State of Punjab
NAMIT KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
