High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/16110/2016disposed of

Anil Kumar Sharma v. State Of Punjab And ORS

2016-08-10Mr. Justice Rameshwar Singh Malik2 pages

CWP No.16110 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16110 of 2016 Date of Decision: 10.8.2016 Anil Kumar Sharma .....Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present :

Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL) Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the genuine grievance of the petitioner was not being redressed by the respondent authorities, he finally approached respondent No.4 by way of representation dated 2.7.2016 (Annexure P-2), but the same is also pending decision. He further submits that the petitioner will be satisfied in case the respondent No.4 is directed to consider and decide his representation, within a reasonable time.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, including the issue of limitation, if any, lest it should prejudice the rights of either of the parties, GREESH SAHNI 2016.08.11 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No.16110 of 2016 the Executive Engineer, Investigation Division (I.B.), Hoshiarpurrespondent No.4 is directed to look into the matter, consider the grievance of the petitioner, raised vide his representation dated 2.7.2016 (Annexure P-2) and decide the same, at an early date by passing an appropriate order thereon, strictly in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is further directed that if, after due consideration of the matter, respondent No. 4 comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the amount being sought to be released, the same shall be released in favour of the petitioner, without any further loss of time. With the abovesaid observations made and directions issued, present petition stands disposed of.

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 10.8.2016 GS Whether speaking/reasoned/non-speaking Whether reportable:

Yes/No GREESH SAHNI 2016.08.11 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh