Harmeet Singh & ORS. v. State Of Punjab & ORS.

: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17670 of 2015 Date of decision: 25.8.2015 Harmeet Singh and others ... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

Present:

Mr.Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

***** 1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. (Oral) A large number of writ petitions were decided by a common judgment and order rendered in CWP No.10575 of 2013 and connected cases on July 30, 2015. The writ petitions were allowed and the impugned order dated November 22, 2012 [Annexure P-6] was set aside. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab in the Department of Agriculture was directed to revisit the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of supply of a certified copy of the order.

Mr. Dadwal submits that for one or the other reason, the present petitioners were left out of the bunch of writ petitions though their claim is identical to the one in the disposed of matters. In the previous litigation in

: 2 :

CWP No.15505 of 2010, CWP No.3908 of 2012, the one before CWP No.10575 of 2013, the petitioners were arrayed at Petitioner 9 in CWP No.15505 of 2010, 6 to 12 and 21 in CWP No.3908 of 2012 in the list of the joint petitioners. Those writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation/s to which the present petitioners were also signatory amongst a host of other aggrieved petitioners who approached this court for relief. Since the competent authority to implement the orders passed by this Court, in the subsequent writ petition, was already seized of the matter, he was mandated to revisit the issue in the light of judgment as aforesaid, then Mr.

Dadwal would submit that it would serve no useful purpose to issue notice of motion in the present case only to receive the response of the State and delay the matter, the conclusion of which is already known since the matter rests with the court order dated July 30, 2015 which presently requires only to be taken to its logical end in implementation of the directions issued to enable the petitioners to join pending departmental proceedings and express their view points as well. In the circumstances, I accept the prayer of Mr. Dadwal as reasonable and dispose of this writ petition in the same terms as in order dated July 30, 2015 passed in CWP No.10575 of 2013.

In case the decision has already not been taken in compliance of the directions in the aforesaid writ petition, then the case of the petitioners can easily be decided in the same manner, if not then it deserves to be clubbed with the rest of the bunch of petitioners in those petitions and decided together in accordance with law.

: 3 :

order passed in the revisit proceedings but after hearing the petitioners and passing a speaking order.

The petition stands disposed of with the above directions. (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE August 25, 2015 Paritosh Kumar