LPA-1330-2025 (O&M) 107 (6 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 1. SUDESH KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2. SANJAY KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 3. NARESH KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 4. GEETA STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 5. KANVARDEEP KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2025 (O&M) and connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SUDESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS **** SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS **** KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS **** Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS **** KANVARDEEP KAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1330-2025 (O&M) . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondents LPA-1332-2025 (O&M) . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondents LPA-1334-2025 (O&M) . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondents LPA-1338-2025 (O&M) . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondents LPA-1339-2025 (O&M) . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondents (O&M) Appellant s (O&M) Appellant . . . . Respondents (O&M) Appellant . . . . Respondents (O&M) Appellant . . . . Respondents (O&M) Appellant . . . . Respondents MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.06 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1330-2025 (O&M) 6. SONU BAJAJ ALIAS SONU KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, Advocate with Mr. Rahil Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. These appeals are filed the learned Single Judge whereby the suited the appellants/writ petitioners on the ground that they did not proceed to act upon the directions issued in their cases way back in the year 2022, whereby the Court allowed the writ petitioners to make representations. to proceed further, other petitioners submitted was rejected by the authorities in 2023, whereafter they challenged the said rejection order before the Court their favour. 2. After the decision was rendered in their cases granting them relief, the present writ petitioners rose from their slumber and preferred writ petition Judge who had passed the earlier judgment in favour of the other writ 2025 (O&M) and connected cases SONU BAJAJ ALIAS SONU KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS **** Date of Decision: 06. **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI **** Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, Advocate with Mr. Rahil Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) se appeals are filed against the order the learned Single Judge whereby the suited the appellants/writ petitioners on the ground that they did not proceed to act upon the directions issued in their cases way back in the year 2022, whereby the Court allowed the writ petitioners to make representations. While the present appellants/writ petitioners chose not to proceed further, other petitioners submitted was rejected by the authorities in 2023, whereafter they challenged the said rejection order before the Court, and the Court passe their favour. After the decision was rendered in their cases granting them relief, the present writ petitioners rose from their slumber and preferred writ petitions before the Court seeking same relief. The learned Single Judge who had passed the earlier judgment in favour of the other writ LPA-1340-2025 (O&M) . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondents .05.2025 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, Advocate with SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) against the order dated 21.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge has non- suited the appellants/writ petitioners on the ground that they did not proceed to act upon the directions issued in their cases way back in the year 2022, whereby the Court allowed the writ petitioners to make While the present appellants/writ petitioners chose not to proceed further, other petitioners submitted representation which was rejected by the authorities in 2023, whereafter they challenged the and the Court passed an order in After the decision was rendered in their cases granting them relief, the present writ petitioners rose from their slumber and preferred writ before the Court seeking same relief. The learned Single Judge who had passed the earlier judgment in favour of the other writ (O&M) Appellant . . . . Respondents passed by - suited the appellants/writ petitioners on the ground that they did not proceed to act upon the directions issued in their cases way back in the year 2022, whereby the Court allowed the writ petitioners to make While the present appellants/writ petitioners chose not representation which was rejected by the authorities in 2023, whereafter they challenged the d an order in After the decision was rendered in their cases granting them relief, the present writ petitioners rose from their slumber and preferred writ before the Court seeking same relief. The learned Single Judge who had passed the earlier judgment in favour of the other writ MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.06 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1330-2025 (O&M) petitioners found the present writ petitions lacking on the ground of delay and laches on their part as well as on the fact that even complied with the earlier directions issued by the Court in the writ petition preferred by them earlier. petitions preferred by the present appellants/writ petitioners were dismissed. 3. We do not find any reason passed by the learned Single Judge. dismissed 4. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. 06.05.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2025 (O&M) and connected cases petitioners found the present writ petitions lacking on the ground of delay and laches on their part as well as on the fact that even complied with the earlier directions issued by the Court in the writ petition preferred by them earlier. petitions preferred by the present appellants/writ petitioners were dismissed. We do not find any reason to interfere with the passed by the learned Single Judge. dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No petitioners found the present writ petitions lacking on the ground of delay and laches on their part as well as on the fact that they had not even complied with the earlier directions issued by the Court in the writ petition preferred by them earlier. In view thereto, the writ petitions preferred by the present appellants/writ petitioners were to interfere with the order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeals are accordingly All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No petitioners found the present writ petitions lacking on the ground of they had not even complied with the earlier directions issued by the Court in the In view thereto, the writ petitions preferred by the present appellants/writ petitioners were order dated 21.03.2025 The appeals are accordingly MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.06 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document