IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: August 24, 2011 C.W.P. No. 7656 of 2011 (O&M) Manjit Kaur Dalli. ….Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others. … Respondents C.O.C.P. No. 983 of 2011 (O&M) Manjit Kaur Dalli. …Petitioner Versus Sarabjit Singh and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shilpa Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP No.7656 of 2011) Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shilpa Malhotra and Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocates, for the petitioner (in COCP No.983 of 2011) Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (in CWP No. 7656 of 2011) Mr. G.S. Attariwala and Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocates, for respondent No.3 (in CWP No.7656 of 2011) and for respondent No.1 CWP No.7656 of 2011 (in COCP No.983 of 2011). Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4 (in CWP No.7656 of 2011) and for respondent No.2 (In COCP 983 of 2011) Mr. S.P. Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 5 to 13 (in CWP No. 7656 of 2011) for respondent Nos. 3 to 11. (in COCP No. 983 of 2011) 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present Civil Writ Petition No. 7656 of 2011, as well as, Contempt Petition No. 983 of 2011 are being disposed of together. Petitioner, respondent No.3 and respondent Nos. 5 to 13 are present in the Court. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, respondent No.3, as well as, respondent Nos. 5 to 13 have consulted their respective clients and have consented for the following order under their instructions: 1. This Court in the writ petition vide order dated 02.05.2011 has stayed the commencement of the meeting in pursuance of the impugned letter (Annexure P/13) and notice (Annexure P/14) till further orders, therefore, no meeting ought to have been convened after the stay order. 2 CWP No.7656 of 2011 2. Impugned meeting convened on 02.05.2011 at 4 p.m. and resolution passed therein shall not be given effect to since it was convened and resolved in violation of interim order dated 02.05.2011, therefore, resolution dated 02.05.2011 stands set aside. 3. Question As to whether 1924 By-laws or By-laws of 1955 are in force is left open to be decided in the appropriate future petition. 4. Meeting shall be convened to discuss `No Confidence Motion’ on such date as fixed by the State Government on the requisitioned already submitted. Mr. S.P. Jain, learned Senior Advocate undertakes to convey this order to the State Government within a week from today so that decision may be taken as early as possible, fixing the date, time and place to convene meeting to discuss `No Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner, but in any case within 30 days. 5. Unconditional apology tendered by the respondents in contempt petition for convening the meeting in violation of interim order dated 02.05.2011 stands accepted and notices issued to the respondents stand discharged. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected matter. August 24, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3