The High Court, noting no appearance by the petitioner, held there was no interest in pursuing the petition and deemed no further order required, consigning the file to the record.
File consigned to the record.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
159 INCOMP-1813-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 10.09.2026
Rai Bahadur … Petitioner
Versus
Amarpreet Kaur, Deputy Commissioner, Fazilka ... Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present:None for the petitioner.
DEEPAK MANCHANDA, J. (Oral)
The petition was filed on 13.05.2026. Certain objections were raised by the Registry. However, learned counsel neither appeared before the Registry nor collected the file to remove the objections.
As per Rule 9, Chapter 1, Part-A, Volume V, Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders, the petition on which objections have been raised by the Registry is to be taken back by the counsel/party, who filed it, to be re-filed within a total period of 40 days.
It is apparent that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the petition. No further order is required to be passed. The file be consigned to the record.
| 10.09.2026 | ( DEEPAK MANCHANDA ) | |
|---|---|---|
| Pankaj | JUDGE | |
| Whether speaking /reasoned | Yes/No | |
| Whether Reportable | Yes/No |
PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.09.11 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
RAI BAHADUR
AMARPREET KAUR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FAZILKA
DEEPAK MANCHANDA
PANKAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
