PRITAM SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — CWP/8636/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 12th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 20-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010467842026

e-Filing Number

18-03-2026

Filing Number

CWP/16254/2026

Filing Date

18-Mar-2026

Registration No

CWP/8636/2026

Registration Date

18-Mar-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger

Coram

Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger

Bench Type

Single

Category

31.2 - MUNICIPAL & PANCHAYAT LAWS ( 559 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

12-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PRITAM SINGH

    Adv. SUSHANT KAREER

  2. 2.State of Punjab and others

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

  2. 2.State of Punjab and others

  3. 3.Director, Department of Rural Development

  4. 4.Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana

  5. 5.ADC, Ludhiana, DC Office

  6. 6.Block Development and Panchayat Officer,

  7. 7.Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat,

  8. 8.Amrik Singh

  9. 9.Gurmeet Singh

  10. 10.Narang Singh son of Channan,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Harsh BungerView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab & Haryana disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 5 (Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Samrala, Ludhiana) to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 09.02.2026 by passing a speaking order after affording due hearing to all parties, within four weeks. The court did not comment on case merits but granted the petitioner's prayer for a time-bound direction on the pending representation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/8636/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 5 (Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Samrala, Ludhiana) to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 09.02.2026 by passing a speaking order after affording due hearing to all parties, within four weeks. The court did not comment on case merits but granted the petitioner's prayer for a time-bound direction on the pending representation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case