CWP-19510 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (141) Parshotam Singh State of Punjab CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. direction upon the respondent No.2, to decide the Appeal No.0062 of 2026 (Annexure P Premises and interim prayer for stay (Annexure P 2. concerned, application for grant of stay of impugned order dated 30.09.2025, has been kept pending, and has not been decided so far. 3. limited prayer to the extent that respondent No.2, be directed to application for stay of impugned order dated 30.09.2025, which is now fixed 19510-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Parshotam Singh Versus State of Punjab and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Ashish Pal Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL) Through the instant petition, prayer is made for issuance of a direction upon the respondent No.2, to decide the Appeal No.0062 of 2026 (Annexure P-3), filed by the petitioner, under Section 9 of the Punjab Public and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 interim prayer for stay against the impugned (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that concerned, on one hand is issuing warrant of possession. However, h application for grant of stay of impugned order dated 30.09.2025, has been kept pending, and has not been decided so far. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a limited prayer to the extent that respondent No.2, be directed to application for stay of impugned order dated 30.09.2025, which is now fixed 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19510-2026 Date of Decision : 26.06.2026 …Petitioner Versus ...Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Advocate Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab. Through the instant petition, prayer is made for issuance of a direction upon the respondent No.2, to decide the Appeal No.0062 of 2026 , filed by the petitioner, under Section 9 of the Punjab Public Recovery) Act, 1973, and decide the against the impugned order dated 30.09.2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities is issuing warrant of possession. However, h application for grant of stay of impugned order dated 30.09.2025, has been kept pending, and has not been decided so far. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a limited prayer to the extent that respondent No.2, be directed to decide his application for stay of impugned order dated 30.09.2025, which is now fixed Through the instant petition, prayer is made for issuance of a direction upon the respondent No.2, to decide the Appeal No.0062 of 2026 , filed by the petitioner, under Section 9 of the Punjab Public , and decide the order dated 30.09.2025 the authorities is issuing warrant of possession. However, his application for grant of stay of impugned order dated 30.09.2025, has been At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a decide his application for stay of impugned order dated 30.09.2025, which is now fixed MANPREET SINGH 2026.06.26 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-19510 for consideration on 15.07.2026. 4. 5. behalf of the respondents and waives service. 6. prayer, which is is passed upon the respondent No.2, to decide the application for stay of impugned order (supra), in a time bound 7. with a direction upon the respondent No.2, to decide the prayer of the petitioner, for grant of stay, on the date already fixed. The petitioner is directed to supply the certifi date, to the authorities concerned enabling them to decide the application, on the date fixed. 8. merits of the case. 9. June 26, 2026 Manpreet 19510-2026 for consideration on 15.07.2026. Notice of motion. Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and waives service. He submits that since the petitioner has made only a limited prayer, which is bona fide, therefore, he has no objection in case a mandamus is passed upon the respondent No.2, to decide the application for stay of impugned order (supra), in a time bound manner. In view of the above, this Court with a direction upon the respondent No.2, to decide the prayer of the petitioner, for grant of stay, on the date already fixed. The petitioner is directed to supply the certified copy of this order date, to the authorities concerned enabling them to decide the application, on the date fixed. It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on the merits of the case. Consequently, the instant petition is 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2 Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and waives service. He submits that since the petitioner has made only a limited , therefore, he has no objection in case a mandamus is passed upon the respondent No.2, to decide the application for stay of manner. In view of the above, this Court dispose of the instant petition with a direction upon the respondent No.2, to decide the prayer of the petitioner, for grant of stay, on the date already fixed. The petitioner is ed copy of this order, five days prior to the next date, to the authorities concerned enabling them to decide the application, on It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on the Consequently, the instant petition is disposed of. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab, accepts notice on He submits that since the petitioner has made only a limited , therefore, he has no objection in case a mandamus is passed upon the respondent No.2, to decide the application for stay of the instant petition with a direction upon the respondent No.2, to decide the prayer of the petitioner, for grant of stay, on the date already fixed. The petitioner is , five days prior to the next date, to the authorities concerned enabling them to decide the application, on It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on the MANPREET SINGH 2026.06.26 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment