Sandeep Chhokar v. State Of Haryana And ORS




       
 

 



!"

 #$%$!&'

 

(
 )



(

*   

(

  
'

 +,  (
 -     





    #$%  - .



,



'

  ( 

 )*


+
+,+,

.
,

(& / ,' (&    ( 0  1



 ( 

 (" - 



(&2 1 3 ) 4   5

 #" #  6"  /)

   '

     (& "  !

  '

  )  

" +7+8,+
9 ,++8,+
: ;< )    

,

'  ' 0  ) - 

 (" (&" 

  &



 

 & " 

 " &

&"  &  

 

"(&"(  (& 1





 "   (&    '      - 

 

 .8 ( 

" 2     1 3 ) 4   5

 #" #  6"  /)  

    / +,  ,:+8,+
: ( )  *      "  (

 "  (  (&  "

 &  (0 "

   &



 

" 

 ) )

"  3  "&"  3 



   ;  '         ' 



( )(

 



'- 

  "   "&

( ""

 3   

  0

 ' "  )

 "  

)&(



 & " ;6 =;=$%    "&( !



*   *   - 



(& (

 3    ) 

"+7+8,+
9 ,++8,+
: "    "  &"   

& &" (&3    

) (&

>



    )  '   )

 '

 ( )  

 '

   ' 

(& 2 13   ) 

&

,+
.
9 ,+
:.

? 

)&  (""& @ 3 



  (0    " 3 ""

(& 3    @

  ) 

&

 (   = * &5

%

("    &

   (&3   3 ""

 ( )  & )

" 

*

( "&( )

" %

  

   )       '    '

A  0 (

"(&"A   '  &" "A 

(&3  )

&

 )&"  &  A "   (&

 )    '  

 ))"   (  (&3  1 3 ""

  ( ) "  &

 (   3 (&1 3 ""

  = "    (

(&$ 3 ( 

)

 )  (



 )

   3

 ( )   



(& 

)& /; )

.>888.,+, ( / 788977,, '         3           1  3 ""

   1 3 ""

 >>+++2.    "  
++++2.  ( 1 3 ""

 '   "

 -

  (   (     1  3 ""

(& 1 3 ""

 

2 1 )4 5

#"# 6" /)  )

& "  

.8  @ )

1 3 ""

  

 ;6 =;=$%    "& ( !

 ; %  5

   



* 

 1 3 ""

 )  @

   (

 (&  =

 $      %    "&( !

'  +>"

"  &

9

1 
:+:,+,9

  /0$1 .



- 

0!0



At this stage, i.e. during the after lunch session, before the order could be handed over to the Local Commissioner for ensuring compliance, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not ready and willing to transfer the fee assessed by this Court to the Local Commissioner and thus has expressed his disinclination for an inquiry to be conducted into the claim raised by him.

In view of the aforesaid statement, he fairly concedes that the petitioner would no more have a subsisting right to pursue the present writ petition. Hence, noticing the conscious non-compliance of the order by the petitioner and his refusal to pay the fee of the Local Commissioner, despite a specific undertaking to that effect during the first half of the day, the instant writ petition is dismissed.

Nonetheless, this Court is being regularly approached by mischievous litigants/candidates who are pressing claims for seeking public appointment on the strength of documents which are obtained through mischievous/fraudulent ways and thus taking away the rightful entitlement of the meritorious candidates. Such an adventurism on the part of the candidates,

8

which is on a steep rise, needs to be curbed. This would thus call for an action by the Court as well as the authorities.

Under the given circumstances, while reiterating the requirement of the Local Commissioner to take seizure of the record of the Contractor and investigation to be conducted by the Inspector General of Police, Haryana Police Academy, Madhuban, it is directed that the requisite fee shall be paid by the State Government to the Local Commissioner.

In the event of the inquiry being concluded against the petitioner as well as the Contractor, appropriate befitting action shall be taken against them.

To come up on 17.07.2025 for compliance and further consideration.

/0$1 .



- 

0!0