A writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was dismissed as infructuous because the petitioners stated at the Bar that the matter no longer required adjudication.
The petition was dismissed as infructuous.
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.
138
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-37428-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.09.2026
Meenu Sharma and others
... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI
Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate, Mr. Rajiv Goel, Advocate and Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI, J. (ORAL)
disposed off.
11.09.2026
[ RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI ] JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
VISHNU 2026.09.11 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
Meenu Sharma and others
State of Punjab and another
RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
