Dharam Raj Dangi And ORS v. State Of Haryana And ORS

-1-    

 

  

 



 !

"#

!$%&%"'( ) *) )

 

 

+

,! % %"'!- &

.!-&/&

+

   

+

,!&0"'1!'

&

(

 2 3 ) +
 .

+)

 



  

 


 








  .

+)

 )



3)


 
! 

"


# $
% $

&$ 

 
'

'( ')
* +
,-

"
 
. /0
 
1 '

')
* +
,-

"
 
. 10
 
 
'

 ')
* +
,/-

"
 
. )
!"
$

$
2  
2
 
"  



4&&

"
 

 
$ $

&


"
 !
&  
 

  "




!

-2- 


"&


 
!

&  6
 &






 

$

4

&
 

&$ 


"

 
$


 

  $


 

7$&


 8"
2&
4 

&




  

  

       

 !
""##!

/


"
 
"&


"

 
 $

"

 *-


&"

!  
  $
&
 


 





!
  
!




"$ # %!

& '(& 


)* 

 

"$ ++ 

#& '( 




)* 

8
 

!  
!
!
"

4

7$&
 
1 '3 '(


 
!
"7
&



 $


,   -

& ,- $+.  

  &   '
  )* 

( 



8
 
 
  
9


 
 
"& 



 
'( '/ '(

"

 8"

: 


4 


9

"
& 
"& 
 


 





!  

%

"



 
'( '/ '(



9
 



!   
&
"



&


-31
9 
2 
 
does not dispute that the ratio of judgment in the matter of ,- $+.  

  &   '
  )* 

( 



8
 
 
  
9


 




 
'( '/ '( would be applicable to the case of the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions.
(
 $
! 

 


 
 
!  &&  $


& 





" 

  




&


7$&
 
'( '/ '(


,- $+. 

 & '
)* 

( 

 

8
(supra)
;
$ $
! !

4
 

&
 



 
!  






  $
&
  *-

 


  *-


 $



/45 6



.

+)

 

-7 -"-

 
< 
# $6 


=6.
< 
 "











=6.