Mohinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

CWP-27740-2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-27740-2023 Date of decision: 28.04.2025 Mohinder Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

None for the petitioner.

Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab.

**** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer made in the present petition is for taking action against the concerned staff/employees of respondents No.4 and 5. 2.

Learned State counsel refers to para-4 of the preliminary objection in the written statement, to which there was no rebuttal by filing any replication, and reads thus:

"4.

That the true facts of the case are the petitioner namely Mohinder Singh s/o Charan Singh R/o Village Lakhuwal, Ajnala, District Amritsar had applied in Suvidha Kendra to renew his ammunition license no. DM/ASR/DUP/AIN/1217/237 dated 31/08/2016 and the period for renewing of the license was to be extended from 2016 to 2019 but the employee of Suvidha Kendra at that time mistakenly extended the period upto 2016, for the correction of which the petitioner filed CRF no. 2038 of dated 15/01/2018 and CRF no. 5964 dated 26/09/2019 and at that time the said CRF's were also being dealt by Suvidha Kendra. At that time the documents were not fully attached by the petitioner. The Punjab Government closed all the Suvidha Kendra on 06/09/2016 and the services of all the employees were ANIL KUMAR 2025.04.29 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-27740-2023 terminated.

The Punjab Government closed the Suvidha Kendra and in the lieu of it started new e- service centers. The petitioner Mohinder Singh then came to the Arms branch in 2021 and explained the entire situation, the license of the applicant was corrected on 30/09/2021 and stickers were handed over to him. It is most respectfully submitted that no negligence was committed by any employer of this office and all the employees of Seva Kendra were terminated at that time and action cannot be taken against them"

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time on the last date of hearing upon the submission made on behalf of State based on the above, however, there is no representation on his behalf. 4.

Dismissed for non-prosecution.

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 28.04.2025 anil Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No ANIL KUMAR 2025.04.29 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document