Crl. Misc. No.51724-M of 2007 Present: Shri Avnish Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. The prayer in this petition is for cancellation of regular bail granted to the 2nd respondent vide order dated October 15, 2007. The relief afore-stated has been sought primarily on the ground that respondent No.2 did not approach this Court with clean hands and concealed the material facts, inasmuch as he had approached the learned Sessions Judge also for the same relief during the pendency of his petition before this Court. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I am of the considered view that no case to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2 is made out. Admittedly, it is not the case of the petitioner that after his release on bail, respondent No.2 has misused the concession of bail and/or has been found involved in some other such like case. Dismissed. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Miscellaneous No.23464-CII of 2007 in C.O.C.P. No.77 of 2007 Present: Shri P.K. Goklaney, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioners. Shri G.S. Cheema, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. G.S. Cheema, learned Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has placed on record the photostat copy of the government orders (issued on 2.1.2008) in terms whereof sanction has been accorded for actual payment to the petitioners as well as non-petitioners, who have been found eligible. In view of the fact that the government has accorded the necessary sanction, the authorities concerned are directed to release the necessary payments within a period of two months. In these circumstances, no case to revive the contempt proceedings, at this stage, is made out. Disposed of as infructuous. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Miscellaneous No.23468-CII of 2007 in C.O.C.P. No.308 of 2007 Present: Shri P.K. Goklaney, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioners. Shri G.S. Cheema, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. G.S. Cheema, learned Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has placed on record the photostat copy of the government orders (issued on 2.1.2008) in terms whereof sanction has been accorded for actual payment to the petitioners as well as non-petitioners, who have been found eligible. In view of the fact that the government has accorded the necessary sanction, the authorities concerned are directed to release the necessary payments within a period of two months. In these circumstances, no case to revive the contempt proceedings, at this stage, is made out. Disposed of as infructuous. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Miscellaneous No.23467-CII of 2007 in C.O.C.P. No.307 of 2007 Present: Shri P.K. Goklaney, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioners. Shri G.S. Cheema, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. G.S. Cheema, learned Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has placed on record the photostat copy of the government orders (issued on 2.1.2008) in terms whereof sanction has been accorded for actual payment to the petitioners as well as non-petitioners, who have been found eligible. In view of the fact that the government has accorded the necessary sanction, the authorities concerned are directed to release the necessary payments within a period of two months. In these circumstances, no case to revive the contempt proceedings, at this stage, is made out. Disposed of as infructuous. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Miscellaneous No.23466-CII of 2007 in C.O.C.P. No.79 of 2007 Present: Shri P.K. Goklaney, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioners. Shri G.S. Cheema, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. G.S. Cheema, learned Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has placed on record the photostat copy of the government orders (issued on 2.1.2008) in terms whereof sanction has been accorded for actual payment to the petitioners as well as non-petitioners, who have been found eligible. In view of the fact that the government has accorded the necessary sanction, the authorities concerned are directed to release the necessary payments within a period of two months. In these circumstances, no case to revive the contempt proceedings, at this stage, is made out. Disposed of as infructuous. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Miscellaneous No.23465-CII of 2007 in C.O.C.P. No.78 of 2007 Present: Shri P.K. Goklaney, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioners. Shri G.S. Cheema, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. G.S. Cheema, learned Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has placed on record the photostat copy of the government orders (issued on 2.1.2008) in terms whereof sanction has been accorded for actual payment to the petitioners as well as non-petitioners, who have been found eligible. In view of the fact that the government has accorded the necessary sanction, the authorities concerned are directed to release the necessary payments within a period of two months. In these circumstances, no case to revive the contempt proceedings, at this stage, is made out. Disposed of as infructuous. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1368 of 2007 Present: Shri R.N. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. Mr. R.S. Kundu, learned Additional AG, Haryana has filed an affidavit of Jai Vir Singh Dhanda, District Elementary Education Officer, Jind on behalf of the respondents. The said Officer is stated to be present in Court also. Along with the affidavit, an order dated 4.1.2008 (Annexure R- 1) has been appended whereby the petitioner's claim, as contained in the legal notice served by her upon the authorities, has been decided, as directed by this Court. In this view of the matter, no further action is required to be taken in this petition, which is accordingly disposed of, however, with liberty to the petitioner to impugn the above stated order, if so advised. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1579 of 2007 Present: Shri Vipul Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. Mr. R.S. Kundu, learned Additional AG, Haryana has filed an affidavit of K.S. Bhoria, IAS, Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Home, Jails and Judicial Departments, Haryana, on behalf of the respondents, which is taken on record. Along with the aforesaid affidavit, an order dated 4.1.2008 passed by the Haryana Government has also been appended whereby the petitioner, along with some other convicts, has been ordered to be released upon undergoing the requisite period of sentence. In this view of the matter, no further action is required to be taken in these proceedings. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1591 of 2007 Present: Shri G.s. Gandhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let four copies of this petition be handed over to Shri R.S. Kundu, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, during course of the day, who shall have instructions in the matter on the adjourned date. Adjourned to 25.2.2008. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Miscellaneous No.203-CII of 2008 in/and C.O.C.P. No.1690 of 2007 Present: Shri Naresh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction regarding the description of the respondent. C.M. stands disposed of. Let notice of motion issue to the respondent to show cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against her, returnable on 25.2.2008. Personal appearance shall, however, remain exempt till further orders. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6009 of 2007 Date of decision: January 10, 2008. Darshan Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Roshan Lal ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Shri Sherry Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 25.10.2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talwandi Sabo. Vide the aforementioned order, the petitioner has been granted leave to defend in a suit for recovery, however, he has been directed to furnish security to the tune of Rs.17 lacs. Aggrieved at the grant of conditional leave to defend, the petitioner has approached this Court. I have heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at length. The undisputed facts are that the respondent – plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.17.05 lacs against the petitioner. The said civil suit is based upon a pronote. The petitioner appears to have sought leave to defend on the ground that the pronote is a forged document. Civil Revision No.6009 of 2007 -2- Be that as it may, in a suit for recovery based upon a pronote, there is per se nothing wrong if the learned trial court, while permitting the petitioner to contest the said suit, has asked him to furnish security towards the substantial part of the amount sought to be recovered from him. No interference in the impugned order, therefore, is called for. Dismissed. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.28 of 2008 Present: Shri Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let notice of motion issue to respondents to show cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against them, returnable on 25.2.2008. Personal appearance shall, however, remain exempt till further orders. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.29 of 2008 Present: Shri M.L. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Let notice of motion issue to respondent No.7 to show cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against him, returnable on 18.2.2008. He is directed to remain present in Court.. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.30 of 2008 Date of decision: January 10, 2008. Kitab Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Smt. Promila Issar & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - In this contempt petition, the petitioner seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents, firstly on the ground that the award dated 19.12.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Panipat having been upheld by this Court and thereafter by the Supreme Court vide orders Annexures P-2 and P-3 respectively, it is imperative upon the authorities of the respondent – Corporation not only to reinstate but to retain the petitioner in service. It is contended that since the petitioner, immediate after his reinstatement in terms of the aforesaid orders, has again been retrenched, it amounts to willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by this Court as well as the Apex Court. The second contention of the petitioner is that he had filed yet another C.W.P. No.17072 of 2006 before this Court wherein a direction was COCP No.30 of 2008 -2- sought to consider his name for re-employment in accordance with the government policy dated 21.6.2006. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 30.10.2006 (Annexure P-7) with a direction to the respondent – authorities to consider the representation made by he petitioner for the aforesaid relief. It is contended that though the said representation has been disposed of by a reasoned order dated 21.12.2006 (Annexure P-8), however, the petitioner's claim has been unjustifiably turned down. After hearing Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I am of the considered view that no case to initiate the contempt proceedings is made out. Admittedly, the award passed by the Labour Court, which was upheld by this Court as well as the Apex Court, was duly complied with. Consequential benefits, if any, flowing from the said award were also released in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has again been retrenched from the service for the reason that the Corporation itself has been closed down and services of all the officials/officers working with the Corporation have been dispensed with. No exception can be made in favour of the petitioner for retaining him in service merely because he was earlier reinstated in terms of the orders passed by the Labour Court. As regards to the petitioner's entitlement for re-employment in terms of the government policy framed for absorption of retrenched employees like him, the only direction issued passed by this Court was to consider the petitioner's claim as contained in his representation and to decide the same in accordance with law. COCP No.30 of 2008 -3- Admittedly, the said direction has been complied with by passing the order dated 21.12.2006 (Annexure P-8). In these circumstances, the only remedy with which the petitioner appears to be left is to impugn the said order before an appropriate forum, if so advised. With liberty aforementioned, dismissed. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.31 of 2008 Present: Mrs. Sangita Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let notice of motion issue to the respondent to show cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against him, returnable on 25.2.2008. Personal appearance shall, however, remain exempt till further orders. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.32 of 2008 Present: Shri A.S. Tewatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let notice of motion issue to respondents No.1,2 and 5 to show cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against them, returnable on 25.2.2008. Personal appearance shall, however, remain exempt till further orders. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.127 of 2008 Date of decision: January 10, 2008. Inder Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Inderjit Singh & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Shri Vikram Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - Aggrieved at the order dated 29.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat, the petitioner – plaintiff has filed this Revision Petition. His grievance is that vide the aforementioned order, the application moved by respondents No.1 to 3 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, for their impleadment as defendants in the civil suit No.323 of 2006 filed by the petitioner against the Gram Panchayat of village Pritampura, has been erroneously allowed. As may be seen from the contents of the impugned order itself, the dispute pertains to a rasta No.68 (public street). The petitioner – plaintiff relies upon some exchange of land allegedly between him and the Gram Panchayat and contends that the said rasta is no longer in existence. Civil Revision No.127 of 2008 -2- On the other hand, the applicant – respondents sought their impleadment on the ground that the aforementioned rasta is the only path for egress and ingress to their agricultural fields. From the very nature of the lis, I am of the considered view that the respondent – applicants are undoubtedly proper, if not necessary, party. Therefore, the impugned order warrants no interference by this Court. Faced with this situation, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that in the light of the impleadment of respondents No.1 to 3 as defendants, the petitioner ought to have been permitted to amend his plaint. So far as the amendment of the plaint based upon the factors like subsequent events noticed above are concerned, the petitioner, if so advised, may move an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which shall be considered and disposed of by the learned trial court, in accordance with law. With these observations, dismissed. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Crl. Misc. No.85018 of 2007 in Crl. A. No.367-SB of 2007 Present: Shri T.S. Sangha, Advocate Shri G.S. Cheema, Sr. DAG, Punjab. The earlier application of the applicant – appellant for suspension of sentence was dismissed by me on 23.7.2007 'at that stage'. The present application, therefore, may be listed as per roster on 17.1.2008 after obtaining appropriate orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice. However, the reply-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Writ Petition No.6792 of 2002 Present: Shri M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, with Shri Rohit Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Hawa Singh Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana, with Ms. Raminder Gadhoke, Advocate Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional AG, Haryana Shri Vikas Behl, Advocate Shri Narneder Hooda, Advocate Shri D.K. Monga, Advocate Shri Ashish Chopra, Advocate Shri Sanjeev Kaushaik, Advocate, for the Central Govt. In deference to the order dated 6.11.2007, the status report by way of affidavit of A.K. Somal, Executive Engineer, HUDA Division No.III, Gurgaon has been filed, which is taken on record. A perusal of the status report does indicate that certain development works have been approved in principle and necessary steps towards actual implementation thereof are also being taken. As regards to the Solid-Waste Treatment Plant, the status report suggests that the land has been acquired, however, for setting up of the plant, certain clearances are required from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India, Adjourned to 10.3.2008. Meanwhile, let the State Government/HUDA authorities approach the Ministry concerned for clearance of the afore-stated project at Civil Writ Petition No.6792 of 2002 -2- the earlier. If any such application is moved by them, having regard to the nature of urgency for the proposed plant, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India is expected to dispose of the request expeditiously. Similarly, essential steps for improvement in electricity and water supply be also taken and a report to this effect be placed before this Court on the adjourned date. Meanwhile, reply to C.M. No.17439 of 2006 be also filed. Let a copy of this order, duly authenticated under the signatures of the Bench Secretary, be supplied to the learned Advocate General, Haryana, at the earliest, for information and necessary compliance/follow up action. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge