IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107 CWP-24408-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.09.2026 Satpal Singh ….Petitioner V/S Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and another ….Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. J.P. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manbir Singh Batth, Advocate for the respondents. **** NAMIT KUMAR , J. (ORAL) 1. On the last date of hearing, i.e., 06.08.2026, the following order was passed :- “The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance during the pendency/conclusion of the criminal proceedings which arising out of same set of charges in the criminal proceedings as continuation of departmental proceedings would amount to advance disclosure of defence, which the petitioner may take in the criminal proceedings. On receipt of advance copy of the petition, Mr. Manbir Singh Batth, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 and at the outset raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the present petition and submits that the same prayer was made by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition bearing CWP No.16588 of 2026 (Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others), wherein apart from the relief claimed in the VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.09.10 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-24408-2026 (O&M) -2- present petition, prayer for release of arrears of subsistence allowance in terms of the suspension order dated 29.08.2025 was made and the prayer for keeping the departmental proceedings in abeyance during the pendency of the criminal proceedings was withdrawn by the petitioner, vide order dated 25.05.2026. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks an adjournment to place on record copies of orders of the Trial Court of the 05 cases which are pending against the petitioner whereby the charges were framed against him. Adjourned to 10.09.2026.” 2. However, orders passed by the Trial Court have not been placed on record by learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action with better particulars and by attaching the orders of the Trial Court passed in 05 cases which are pending against the petitioner whereby the charges were framed against him. 4. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. 10.09.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR) kothiyal JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.09.10 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document