Muskan and Another Vs State of Haryana and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Muskan and Another Vs State of Haryana and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No. 2 to look into the representation dated 26.05.2026 (P-3) and decide the same in accordance with law by a speaking order, preferably within two (02) weeks; in default, respondent No. 2 to pay costs of Rs. 2 lakhs from his/her own pocket to the petitioners, recoverable as arrears of land revenue.

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction should issue to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondent Nos. 4 to 8.

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the controversy, the petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to look into the representation dated 26.05.2026 (P-3) and decide the same in accordance with law by passing a speaking order, preferably within a period of two (02) weeks.

Ratio / Principle

The court held that counsel's prayer — that the representation dated 26.05.2026 (Annexure P-3) be considered and decided by a speaking order expeditiously instead of pressing the petition on merits — was justified.

Key takeaways

If the needful (decision on the representation) is not done, respondent No. 2 is liable to pay costs of Rs. 2 lakhs to the petitioners from his/her own pocket, recoverable as arrears of land revenue.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Harkesh Manuja, J., oral), Criminal Writ Petition No. 6534 of 2026 (O&M), decided 01.06.2026. Petitioners (Muskan and another) sought, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a direction to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to protect their life and liberty at the hands of respondent Nos. 4 to 8. Counsel did not press the petition on merits and asked only that the petitioners' representation dated 26.05.2026 (Annexure P-3) be considered and decided by a speaking order expeditiously; the Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, raised no objection. The court found the prayer justified and, without entering the merits, disposed of the petition, directing respondent No. 2 to look into the representation and decide it in accordance with law by a speaking order, preferably within two (02) weeks, failing which respondent No. 2 would be personally liable for costs of Rs. 2 lakhs to the petitioners, recoverable as arrears of land revenue.

110

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Writ Petition No. 6534 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.06.2026

Muskan and another

.......... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

.......... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr. Kapil Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

(Through Video-Conferencing)

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a prayer has been made for issuance of direction to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondent Nos. 4 to 8.

[2] At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that instead of pressing the present petition on merits, his clients would be satisfied in case the representation dated 26.05.2026 (Annexure P-3) is considered and decided by passing a speaking order expeditiously.

[3] The above prayer seems to be justified.

[4] Notice of motion qua respondent Nos. 1 to 3 only.

[5] Mr. Abhinash Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, who has already been on advance notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, raises no objection against the innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners.

DINESH KUMAR 2026.06.01 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

[2]

CRWP No. 6534 of 2026 (O&M)

[6] In view of the agreed stand taken by both sides, but without going into the merits of the controversy, this petition is disposed off with a direction to respondent No. 2 to look into the representation dated 26.05.2026 (P-3) and decide the same in accordance with law by passing a speaking order, preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from today. In case the needful is not done, respondent No. 2 shall be liable to pay costs of Rs. 2 lakhs from his / her own pocket to the petitioners which shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue.

June 01, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) 'dk kamra' JUDGE

Whether Speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

DINESH KUMAR 2026.06.01 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document