Gourav Arora Vs State of Punjab and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Gourav Arora Vs State of Punjab and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the petitioners' representation dated 12.05.2026 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law by a speaking order, preferably within two weeks; failing which respondent No. 2 is liable to pay costs of Rs. 2 lakhs personally, recoverable as arrears of land revenue; no opinion expressed on the merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ under Article 226 should issue directing respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondent Nos. 4 & 5.

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the controversy, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to look into the representation dated 12.05.2026 (P-3) and decide it in accordance with law by passing a speaking order, preferably within two weeks.

Ratio / Principle

In case the needful (decision of the representation dated 12.05.2026) is not done, respondent No. 2 shall be personally liable to pay costs of Rs. 2 lakhs to the petitioners, recoverable as arrears of land revenue.

Key takeaways

Nothing in the order is to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Harkesh Manuja, J., oral) — CRWP No. 6602 of 2026 (O&M), decided 02.06.2026: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Gourav Arora and others seeking directions to respondent Nos. 3 & 4 for protection of the petitioners' life and liberty at the hands of respondent Nos. 4 & 5 was not pressed on merits. Counsel confined the prayer to expeditious decision of the petitioners' representation dated 12.05.2026 (Annexure P-3) by a speaking order. With no objection from the State's Additional Advocate General, the Court disposed of the petition, directing respondent No. 2 to decide the representation in accordance with law by a speaking order, preferably within two weeks, failing which respondent No. 2 would be personally liable to costs of Rs. 2 lakhs recoverable as arrears of land revenue. It was expressly clarified that nothing in the order was an expression of opinion on the merits. No precedents were considered.

123

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Writ Petition No. 6602 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.06.2026

Gourav Arora and others

.......... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others

.......... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Ms. Sheena Khanna, 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. 3 & 4 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondent Nos. 4 & 5.

[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 their representation dated 12.05.2026 (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. Gunjan Mehta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, 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 petitioner.

DINESH KUMAR 2026.06.02 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

[2]

CRWP No. 6602 of 2026 (O&M)

[6] In view of the agreed stand taken by both sides, but without going into the merits of the controversy, the present petition is disposed off with a direction to respondent No. 2 to look into the representation dated 12.05.2026 (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.

[7] It is made clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy.

June 02, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) 'dk kamra' JUDGE

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

DINESH KUMAR 2026.06.02 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document