Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27050 (PNJ)

SUMITRA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

CWP/20162/2026 · 2026-07-07

Subhas Mehla, Vikas Bahl

Public Interest Litigationbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CWP-20162-2026 (O&M) [1] 123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20162-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.07.2026 Sumitra and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioners as contained in the representation dated 04.06.2026 (Annexure P-9). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied in case representation dated 04.06.2026 is considered by respondent No.2 in a time bound manner. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-State has submitted that representation dated 04.06.2026 would be considered by respondent No.2 within a period of four months from today. It is however submitted that the present order should not be construed to condone the PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.08 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-20162-2026 (O&M) [2] delay, if any, in filing the representation. 4. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2 to decide representation dated 04.06.2026 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the present order. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the case and it would be open to respondent No.2 to decide the same independently in accordance with law and the present order would not be construed to condone the delay, if any, in filing the representation. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 07.07.2026 Pawan Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.08 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document