ANGREJ SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — CWP/15147/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226 227. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 15-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010822512026

e-Filing Number

12-05-2026

Filing Number

CWP/29898/2026

Filing Date

13-May-2026

Registration No

CWP/15147/2026

Registration Date

13-May-2026

Judge

Justice (To Be Nominated) , Mr. Justice Rohit Kapoor

Coram

Justice (To Be Nominated) , Mr. Justice Rohit Kapoor

Category

18.13 - MINES AND MINERALS ( 450 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ANGREJ SINGH

    Adv. GAGANDEEP SINGH VIRK

  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.The Director, Mining and Geology Department

  4. 4.The Deputy Commissioner

  5. 5.The Executive Engineer

  6. 6.The Senior Superintendent of Police

  7. 7.The Station House Officer

  8. 8.Paramjit Singh son of Kewal Singh, Resident of Village Abbupura

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Justice (To Be Nominated),mr. Justice Rohit KapoorView PDF

    Case Summary: CWP/15147/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed Angrej Singh's writ petition challenging alleged illegal mining by his co-sharer. The Court found the dispute to be fundamentally a private civil matter between co-owners, not a case of State inaction, and held that such disputes must be resolved through civil courts with appropriate injunction prayers rather than constitutional proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/15147/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CWP/15147/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed Angrej Singh's writ petition challenging alleged illegal mining by his co-sharer. The Court found the dispute to be fundamentally a private civil matter between co-owners, not a case of State inaction, and held that such disputes must be resolved through civil courts with appropriate injunction prayers rather than constitutional proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case