VASHUDEV MAYANK AGGARWAL vs STATE OF HARYANA — CWP/14839/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 13-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010807682026

e-Filing Number

09-05-2026

Filing Number

CWP/29280/2026

Filing Date

11-May-2026

Registration No

CWP/14839/2026

Registration Date

11-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Coram

Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Category

20.11 - SCOSB (HARYANA) ( 453 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VASHUDEV MAYANK AGGARWAL

  2. 2.State of Haryana

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA

  2. 2.State of Haryana

  3. 3.Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam

  4. 4.The Executive Engineer

  5. 5.The SDO

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh BrarView PDF

    Case Summary: CWP/14839/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed Respondent No.4 (Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam) to consider and decide the petitioner Vashudev's legal notice dated 10.04.2026 by passing a reasoned speaking order within three months, after affording him a hearing. The court found all parties in agreement that a time-bound decision on the notice was appropriate, with the understanding that if the petitioner is found entitled to relief, it shall be granted immediately. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/14839/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CWP/14839/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed Respondent No.4 (Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam) to consider and decide the petitioner Vashudev's legal notice dated 10.04.2026 by passing a reasoned speaking order within three months, after affording him a hearing. The court found all parties in agreement that a time-bound decision on the notice was appropriate, with the understanding that if the petitioner is found entitled to relief, it shall be granted immediately. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case