SANJOGITA vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — CWP/6842/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 10th April 2026.
CNR: PHHC010379642026
e-Filing Number
05-03-2026
Filing Number
CWP/12643/2026
Filing Date
05-Mar-2026
Registration No
CWP/6842/2026
Registration Date
06-Mar-2026
Judge
Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Coram
Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Bench Type
Single
Category
63.63 - CASES RELATING TO ALL KINDS OF COMPENSATION ( 756 )
Judicial Branch
WRITS -I BRANCH
Decision Date
10-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
--DISPOSED OF
Last updated 12-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SANJOGITA
Adv. RAHUL SINGLA
-
2.State of Haryana and others
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
-
2.State of Haryana and others
-
3.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited
-
4.The Chief Engineer Operation
-
5.The Superintending Engineer
-
6.The Executive Engineer
-
7.The Sub Divisional Officer
-
8.Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigan Ltd
-
9.The Executive Engineer
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Apr-2026
Mr. Justice Jagmohan BansalView PDF
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited to consider the petitioner's compensation claim for her husband's death by electrocution within six weeks, based on the 2019 notification establishing strict liability of the power utility for fatal accidents involving its electrical network. The court treated the petition as a formal representation and ordered the respondents to pass an appropriate order according to applicable policy provisions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
05-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CWP/6842/2026
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited to consider the petitioner's compensation claim for her husband's death by electrocution within six weeks, based on the 2019 notification establishing strict liability of the power utility for fatal accidents involving its electrical network. The court treated the petition as a formal representation and ordered the respondents to pass an appropriate order according to applicable policy provisions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts