M/S DHRUV HOLDINGS (P) LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
CWP/12539/2019 · 2026-08-13
Subhas Mehla, Vikas Bahl
body2019
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2019 DAILYLAW 4166 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2019 DAILYLAW 4166 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CWP No.12539 of 2019 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 228 CWP No.12539 of 2019 (O&M) Date of decision: August 13th, 2026 M/s Dhruv Holdings Private Limited .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Mago, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Ms. Parul Saini, Advocate for Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for respondent No.4.
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. In the headnote of the petition, following prayers have been made:
“CIVIL WRIT PETITION under articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari calling for the relevant records from the respondents and, after perusing the same, issuing an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the impugned notifications Annexures P-1 dated 15.11.2002 and P-3 dated 12.11.2003, the impugned award Annexure P-4 dated 18.11.2005, the impugned letter Annexure P-11 dated 4.4.2016 and all proceedings taken in pursuance thereto; AND/OR issue an appropriate writ, direction or order declaring the impugned acquisition proceedings as having lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.” PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.08.17 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No.12539 of 2019 (O&M) 2
2.
Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in pursuance of the representation given by the petitioner under Section 101-A, the respondents have passed an order dated 27.03.2026, a copy of which has been handed over to the Court during the course of arguments, which has been taken on record as Mark A.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the same, the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file fresh petition after laying specific challenge to the said order.
4. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE August 13th, 2026
(SUBHAS MEHLA) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.08.17 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh