Petitioner sought disposal of his writ petition in terms of earlier orders in the Sunil Kumar cases; the State counsel confirmed the orders had not been assailed and the petitioner's case was covered by them. The court disposed of the petition accordingly, along with pending miscellaneous applications.
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.
216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.15149-2019(O&M) Date of Decision:22.01.2026
Mandip Kumar
….Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana and others
….Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. G.S.Gopera, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, D.A.G, Haryana
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2026.01.22 05:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.15149-2019(O&M) -2-
(supra).
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE
22.01.2026
paramjit
| Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes | |
|---|---|
| Whether reportable: | No |
PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2026.01.22 05:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's case could be disposed of in terms of the orders passed in the Sunil Kumar cases, given the State's compliance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunil Kumar vs. State of Haryana and othersRelied on¶1
2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2875 · Who else cites this
Sunil Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and othersRelied on¶1
2025 SCC OnLine P&H 12547 · Who else cites this
Mandip Kumar
State of Haryana
Jagmohan Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
