CWP-14785 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 203 Attar Singh Dahiya State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of for quashing impugned order dated dated 28.08.2001 (Annexure P was revoked and recovery 2. sheets reveal(s) that notice of motion in the back by the and recovery from the petitioner was also stayed. 09.08.2024 un-respresented and fresh were ordered to be issued by a co thereto, following office report has been received: 14785-2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Attar Singh Dahiya Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA None for the petitioner. Mr. Suneel Ranga, DAG, Haryana NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of for quashing impugned order dated 22.08.2001 (Annexure P dated 28.08.2001 (Annexure P-5) whereby the p revoked and recovery was ordered to be effected from the petitioner. The present petition is of the year 2001. sheets reveal(s) that notice of motion in the back by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated recovery from the petitioner was also stayed. 09.08.2024 when this case was listed for hearing respresented and fresh notices to the petitioner as well were ordered to be issued by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. thereto, following office report has been received: “Notice issued to the petitioner received back the report that “shifted to some where long ago IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-14785-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.07.2026 .… Petitioner .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Haryana. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari 22.08.2001 (Annexure P-4); and order 5) whereby the promotion of the petitioner ordered to be effected from the petitioner. is of the year 2001. Perusal of the order- sheets reveal(s) that notice of motion in the main case was issued way Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.09.2001; recovery from the petitioner was also stayed. Thereafter, on when this case was listed for hearing, the petitioner had gone notices to the petitioner as well as his counsel ordinate Bench of this Court. Pursuant thereto, following office report has been received:- “Notice issued to the petitioner received back unserved with the report that “shifted to some where long ago”. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Certiorari 4); and order romotion of the petitioner way on the petitioner had gone as his counsel Pursuant with RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.09 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-14785 3. reported that Malik, Advocate by RA 4. the case having been called twice. 5. the petitioner pendency of the present more than no attempt has been made new counsel. interested in pursuing the present matter 6. liberty to the the same within a period of 7. 08.07.2026 rishu 14785-2001 (O&M) -2- Letter issued to Ld. Counsel have not been received back served or otherwise.” Further, vide report dated reported that ‘Email sent to learned counsels (1) A.G. Hry. (2) Mr. R.K. Malik, Advocate by RA-Writs’. Today, again the petitioner had gone un the case having been called twice. In view of the aforesaid premise, petitioner would be a futile exercise. It appears that due to sheer long pendency of the present writ petition before this Court for a period of more than 25 years, the petition has lost interest in pursuing the same, as no attempt has been made by him to contact new counsel. It is, therefore, clear that the interested in pursuing the present matter. Be that as it may, the main writ petition is the petitioner to move an appropriate application within a period of 02 months from today, if so, advised. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 08.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable tter issued to Ld. Counsel have not been received back Further, vide report dated 16.06.2026 the Registry has ‘Email sent to learned counsels (1) A.G. Hry. (2) Mr. R.K. the petitioner had gone un-represented, despite In view of the aforesaid premise, issuance of fresh notice to would be a futile exercise. It appears that due to sheer long before this Court for a period of lost interest in pursuing the same, as to contact his counsel or to engage a clear that the petitioner is not seriously writ petition is disposed of, with to move an appropriate application for reviving from today, if so, advised. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No tter issued to Ld. Counsel have not been received back the Registry has ‘Email sent to learned counsels (1) A.G. Hry. (2) Mr. R.K. represented, despite issuance of fresh notice to would be a futile exercise. It appears that due to sheer long before this Court for a period of lost interest in pursuing the same, as counsel or to engage a iously with for reviving RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.09 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.