IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1689 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision : April 19, 2011 Guru Angad Dev Veterinary & Animal Science University (GADVASU), Ludhiana and another ....Appellants Versus Dr. K.B.Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Mr. H.N.S.Gill, Advocate for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 30.10.2008 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the matter was covered in favour of the writ petitioners-respondents by a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Gian Chand and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 15554 of 2007 decided on 21.7.2008). The learned Single Judge noticed that there was no dispute with regard to the question of law being covered in favour of the writ petitioners- respondents. 2. The only arguments raised in support of the appeal is that LPA No. 1689 of 2010(O&M) -2- the learned Single Judge should have waited for the result of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 25856 of 2008, which is directed against the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Gian Chand's case (supra). According to the learned counsel, the contempt proceeding taken out by Gian Chand has also been stayed by an interim order dated 7.11.2008. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the considered view that once the ratio of a Division Bench judgment is applied to the case in hand then the pendency of Special Leave Petition would not be a bar for disposal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court would not be denuded of its value as precedent merely on account of the pendency of the Special Leave Petition. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is dismissed. 4. In view of the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on merits, we do not wish to pass any order on the application seeking 415 days' delay in filing the appeal. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S.MANN ) April 19, 2011 JUDGE ajay-I