Varun Sheokand v. State Of Haryana & ORS
CWP No.13228 of 2016 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 13228 of 2016(O&M) Date of Decision: July 11 , 2016.
Varun Sheokand ...... PETITIONER (s)
Versus
State of Haryana ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SARON HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present:
Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
*****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reports or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No ***** S.S.SARON, J.
The Registry has raised an objection as regards the maintainability of this Public Interest Litigation. Reference has even been made to directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 15987 of 2013 (Ajaib Singh and another v. The State of Punjab and others) decided on 26.07.2013.
In Ajaib Singh's case (supra), it has inter alia been held that the petitioner is to specifically disclose his credentials and his direct or indirect personal motive or interest involved in the case, if any, by way of an affidavit. The expression "specifically disclose his credentials" it was OMKAR SINGH 2016.07.18 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No.13228 of 2016 [2] observed must, naturally, imply that he has to set forth what he does for his living, what public interest he has been espousing, the work done by him in that behalf, the particulars of any matter preferred by him as PIL earlier on which the Court has passed orders, etc. It cannot imply merely writing a sentence that a person is residing in the State, is public-spirited and is, thus, filing a PIL.
Despite the asking of an affidavit by the Registry, the petitioner recorded that "the present writ complies with the PIL Rule 2010", besides, all objections have been removed and the case be put up before the Bench. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that the said requirements as raised by the Registry were, in fact, not complied with. He expresses his regret for the same and tenders his apology. He prays that the writ petition may be allowed to be withdrawn so as to enable the petitioner to file a fresh one by complying with the PIL Rules, 2010 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ajaib Singh's case (supra).
In the circumstances, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh one after complying with the PIL Rules, 2010 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ajaib Singh's case (supra).
( S.S.SARON ) JUDGE ( LISA GILL ) July 11 , 2016.
JUDGE 'om'
OMKAR SINGH 2016.07.18 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh