Ramesh Kumar v. Sdo (Civil) Barara And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 25945 of 2016 Decided on : 27.01.2017 Ramesh Kumar . . . Petitioners

Versus

Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Ambala & another . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH PRESENT: Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) On December 15, 2016, the following order was passed:- "It was not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that certain amount is payable by the petitioner and even if, his writ petition is accepted, an amount of ` 6 lacs shall be payable by the petitioner.

In such a situation, in order to exercise extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India, it would be appropriate to see the bona fides of the petitioner. Let a demand draft of ` 3 lacs in favour of respondent No.2-Bank be produced on the next dae of hearing. Adjourned to 27.01.2017.

It is, however, made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to bring the demand draft of the aforesaid amount on the next date of hearing, the instant petition shall be treated to have been dismissed."

Jawala Ram 2017.01.31 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 25945 of 2016 - 2 - 2.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to show whether the demand draft of ` 3 lacs, in terms of order dated December 15, 2016, has been brought in Court or not, the reply of the counsel for the petitioner was in the negative. 3.

In view of the above, no ground for exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is made out. 4.

Dismissed.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) January 27, 2017 JUDGE J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No Jawala Ram 2017.01.31 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh