← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/12279/2016disposed of

Sanjeev Kumar v. State Of Haryana And ORS

2016-08-23Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta,Mrs Justice Daya Chaudhary2 pages

-1CWP No.12279 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.12279 of 2016 Date of decision: 23.08.2016 Sanjeev Kumar ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present: - Mr. Rajnish K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Pankaj Kundra, Advocate, for Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of a bunch of seven petitions bearing CWP Nos.12279, 12281, 12290, 12311, 12324, 12329 and 12330 of 2016 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, facts involved therein are identical.

2.

The petitioners in all the petitions have sought quashing of impugned letter dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure P-6) issued in compliance of the order dated 17.11.2014 passed by respondent No.2 thereby suspending the allotment letter issued to them.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) at the very outset states that the writ petitions can be disposed of at this stage by permitting the petitioner(s) to file a detailed and comprehensive representation(s) before respondent No.2 raising all the pleas as have been sought to be raised herein. Further prayer has been made that a time bound direction be issued Ravinder Singh 2016.08.29 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document to respondent No.2 to decide the representation(s) after affording an

-2CWP No.12279 of 2016 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner(s).

4.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the paperbook and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, we dispose of these writ petitions by permitting the petitioner(s) to file a detailed and comprehensive representation(s) before respondent No.2 within a period of one month from today. It is further directed that if any such representation(s) is/are filed, same shall be decided by respondent No.2 within next three months after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner(s) by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (RAMENDRA JAIN) 23.08.2016 JUDGE R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Ravinder Singh 2016.08.29 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document