Paramjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11878 of 2015 Decided on : 11.08.2016 Paramjit Singh . . . Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Mr. Jonny Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab.

Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Advocate for respondent No.6.

Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate for respondents No.7 & 8.

Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for respondent No.9.

Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate for respondent No.10.

**** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, a prayer has been made for seeking direction to the respondents to complete the remaining work of sewerage system and sewerage treatment plant in the town of Bagha Purana, Distt. Moga expeditiously.

2.

It was not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that 80% work has been completed and only 20% of the aforesaid work still remains to be done by the respondents. Learned counsel for respondent No.10 states that the approval for the proposal for sewerage system and Jawala Ram 2016.08.27 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 11878 of 2015 - 2 - sewerage treatment plant has been received from the Department of Water Supply and Sanitation (DWSS), which was granted on 15th July, 2016 and that an amount of `1,68,15,000/-, against the above said project has been released to the Punjab Municipal Infrastructure Development Company for third party Technical and Financial audit. It was submitted that the work shall be completed within a period of five months with full cooperation between all the parties. It was also stated that amount of `11.21 Crores, allotted for the said project, shall be released periodically on submission of the completion certificates. An affidavit to that effect, on behalf of respondent No.10 has also been filed in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

3.

In view thereof, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. It is, however, clarified that in case the respondents do not take action in accordance with the aforesaid statement made in Court today, it shall be open to the petitioner to file an application for revival of the writ petition.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (RAMENDRA JAIN) August 11, 2016 JUDGE J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No Jawala Ram 2016.08.27 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh