High CourtsDivision Bench(2001) 05 P&H CK 0122

Amarjit Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 22 May 2001 · Citation: (2002) 3 RCR(Civil) 201

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.K. Sud, J · Jawahar Lal Gupta, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 8969 of 2000

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 247 words

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner was working as a Chowkidar, vide order dated June 2, 2000, he was ordered to be removed. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. He prays that the order dated June 2, 2000, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.3 with the writ petition, be quashed.

2.

Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed a written statement. It has been inter alia averred that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Rule 42 of the Chaukidara Rules.

3.

Faced with this situation, Mr. B.S. Sidhu, counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to fib an appeal within one month from today. Learned counsel, however, points out that under the provisions of Rule 42, an order of removal passed by the Sub Divisional Officer has not been made appealable specifically, Mr. M.C. Berry, Senior D.A.G. Punjab, states that the appeal is competent and that the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy. He further states that no limitation has been prescribed. However, since, the petitioner has been pursuing the writ petition, the objection of laches or limitation shall not be raised.

4.

In view of the above, Mr. Sidhu prays for permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file the appeal within one month from today.

5.

Allowed as prayed for.

6.

Disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Sd/- N.K. Sud, J.