Civil Writ Petition No.9967 v. State of Punjab
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 31 May 2011
- Bench
- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Outcome
Disposed of
The petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 2(s)
Judgment
Operative part
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9967 Date of decision: 31.5.2011 of 2011 Gram Panchayat village Sehajpura Khurd and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. B.P.S.Virk, Advocate for the petitioner ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. This petition seeks quashing of notification Annexure P-7 whereby certain villages have been transferred from local area of one Police Station to local area of another Police Station notified under Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that impugned order is based on political consideration ignoring convenience of the petitioners as the Police Station with which the villages of the petitioners have been attached is at the distance of 20 kilometers while existing police station is only at the distance of 3 kilometers. We are of the view that the impugned order is primarily within the jurisdiction of the administration and such decision cannot be reviewed in exercise of powers of judicial review by this Court in absence of illegality or irrationality. Some villages are always bound to be at more distance Civil Writ Petition No.9967 of 2011 -2- *** from particular Police Station which by itself cannot be held to be illegal or irrational. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned notification. It is, however, made clear that this will not debar the petitioners from pursuing their remedy with the concerned authorities. The petition is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice May 31, 2011 Pka (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 2(s).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 31 May 2011. The bench was AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.