Cwp No.86 of 2010 (Oandm) Vs. the State of Punjab and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1070851
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMar-26-2013
AppellantCwp No.86 of 2010 (Oandm)
RespondentThe State of Punjab and ors.
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh. cwp no.86 of 2010 (o&m) date of decision:26. 3.2013 narinder singh & ors.-----petitioner(s) versus the state of punjab & ors.-----respondent(s) coram:- hon'ble mr.justice rakesh kumar garg 1 whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.”2. to be referred to reporters or not?.”3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. present:- mr.puneet gupta, advocate for the petitioners.mr.anant kataria, aag, punjab. --- rakesh kumar garg, j. learned counsel for the respondent-state has informed this court that all the petitioners have been intimated with regard to pendency of this writ petition. however, only petitioners no.1to 4, 9, 10 and 13 have approached this court by filing cm no.4991 of 2013. the remaining petitioners are not represented despite the fact that they knot about the pendency of this writ petition. thus, it seems that they are not interested in pursuing the instant writ petition. as such, this petition on behalf of petitioners no.5 to 8, 11, 12 and 14 to 16 is ordered to be dismissed. cwp no.86 o”2. cm no.4991 of 2013 has been moved on behalf of petitioners no.1to 4, 9, 10 and 13. at the outset, counsel for the petitioners states that this application for withdrawal of the writ petition with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action with better particulars be confined only qua petitioners no.1 and 2 and the writ petition filed on behalf of petitioners no.3, 4, 9, 10 and 13 be dismissed as not pressed. ordered accordingly. learned counsel for the petitioners has further informed this court that in fact a fresh petition i.e.cwp no.6630 of 2013 has been filed on behalf of petitioners no.1 and 2 before this court, which is listed for today, wherein the factum of pendency of this writ petition and filing of instant application has been duly mentioned/incorporated. keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the prayer is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed on behalf of petitioners no.1 and 2 with liberty to pursue their fresh petition i.e.cwp no.6630 of 2013. marc”2013. ( rakesh kumar garg ) ak judge
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CWP No.86 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:

26. 3.2013 Narinder Singh & ORS.-----Petitioner(s) versus The State of Punjab & ORS.-----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.”

2. To be referred to reporters or not?.”

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

Present:- Mr.Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Anant Kataria, AAG, Punjab.

--- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State has informed this Court that all the petitioners have been intimated with regard to pendency of this writ petition.

However, only petitioners No.1to 4, 9, 10 and 13 have approached this Court by filing CM No.4991 of 2013.

The remaining petitioners are not represented despite the fact that they knot about the pendency of this writ petition.

Thus, it seems that they are not interested in pursuing the instant writ petition.

As such, this petition on behalf of petitioners No.5 to 8, 11, 12 and 14 to 16 is ordered to be dismissed.

CWP No.86 o”

2. CM No.4991 of 2013 has been moved on behalf of petitioners No.1to 4, 9, 10 and 13.

At the outset, counsel for the petitioners states that this application for withdrawal of the writ petition with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action with better particulars be confined only qua petitioners No.1 and 2 and the writ petition filed on behalf of petitioners No.3, 4, 9, 10 and 13 be dismissed as not pressed.

Ordered accordingly.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further informed this Court that in fact a fresh petition i.e.CWP No.6630 of 2013 has been filed on behalf of petitioners No.1 and 2 before this Court, which is listed for today, wherein the factum of pendency of this writ petition and filing of instant application has been duly mentioned/incorporated.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the prayer is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed on behalf of petitioners No.1 and 2 with liberty to pursue their fresh petition i.e.CWP No.6630 of 2013.

Marc”

2013. ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE