The High Court of Punjab and Haryana summarily disposed of the petition by applying its prior decision in Sandeep Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.24483 of 2025, decided 04.09.2025), with no opposition from the State; the ruling upholds the binding nature of coordinate bench decisions within the court’s jurisdiction and confirms predictability for similarly circumstanced litigants.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/26893/2025 of EHC RAJINDER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC011451822025 |
| Date of Registration | 08-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent for coordinate benches and subordinate courts within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms earlier High Court decision: Sandeep Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.24483 of 2025) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a case identically placed to a previous matter decided by the Court must be disposed of in like terms by applying the earlier judgment. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
Where the facts and legal issues of a petition are squarely covered by a previous decision of the same High Court, judicial discipline and consistency require that the subsequent petition be disposed of in terms of that earlier judgment. The State’s inability to controvert the applicability of the precedent further reinforces the uniform application of law. The practice ensures legal certainty, equal treatment, and avoids unnecessary re-litigation on identical legal questions. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Sandeep Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.24483 of 2025 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Doctrine of precedent and coordinate bench binding authority within the High Court. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners’ counsel submitted their case was identical to that decided in Sandeep Kumar (supra); State counsel did not contest this position; on this basis, the Court disposed of the petition in terms of the earlier judgment. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and Benches within the jurisdiction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, particularly when addressing similarly situated petitioners |
| Follows | Sandeep Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.24483 of 2025, decided 04.09.2025) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that once a coordinate bench has settled a legal issue, identical matters must be disposed of in line with that decision for the sake of consistency and predictability.
- Lawyers may cite this for quick disposal when their client’s case is on all fours with a previous High Court judgment.
- The State’s non-opposition strengthens the principle of non-contestation when no factual or legal distinction exists.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court began by recording that the petitioners’ case was claimed to be squarely covered by the Sandeep Kumar and others judgment.
- The State did not dispute the applicability of the precedent.
- Given these circumstances, the Court disposed of the present petition in terms of the earlier judgment to maintain judicial consistency.
- The reasoning upholds the doctrine of precedent as applied within the same High Court, ensuring similarly situated litigants receive similar relief without relitigating settled points.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Contended the present case is squarely covered by the judgment in Sandeep Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.24483 of 2025).
Respondent (State)
- Additional Advocate General for Haryana did not controvert/apply any argument against the applicability of the previous decision to the present case.
Factual Background
The petitioners approached the High Court contending that their case was factually and legally identical to that already decided by the Court in Sandeep Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.24483 of 2025). The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, did not dispute this. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the present petition in line with its earlier judgment.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment itself does not lay out statutory provisions interpreted; it instead disposes of the matter summarily by reference to an earlier High Court decision found to be directly applicable.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion is recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or innovations are introduced in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment strictly follows the coordinate bench’s previous decision in Sandeep Kumar and others (CWP No.24483 of 2025) and reiterates judicial consistency within the High Court.