Ramandeep Bansal v. State Of Punjab & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 17159 of 2016 Date of Decision: 24.8.2016 Ramandeep Bansal .....Petitioner Vs.

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

Mr. Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL) Instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.5.2015 (Anexure P-5) passed by the respondent-Municipal Council, Nabha, whereby the petitioner was duly informed about his claim. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

A bare reading of the impugned communication would show that Junior Engineer visited the site for inspection of the work executed by the petitioner, but he did not cooperate with the Junior Engineer. In such an unwarranted situation created by the petitioner, his claim has still not been declined by the respondent Municipal Council. The relevant part of the impugned communication dated 28.5.2015 (Annexure P-5), reads as under:- "With reference to the above mentioned subject, the legal notice sent by you in this office, you are hereby informed that the bill regarding the work of Development Amit Kumar 2016.08.26 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document for the sum of Rs.2,50,242, raised by your client

Civil Writ Petition No. 17159 of 2016 Sh. Ramandeep Bansal has been registered vide MB No. 167 by Junior Engineer but, your client did not visit the spot to get the work inspected because of which Municipal Engineer has not put this bill on C&B. That's why, the payment could not be paid. Therefore, the concerned bill shall be got inspected and subsequently C&B from the concerned then Assistant Municipal Engineer and be submitted in the office of Municipal Council so that the proceedings regarding disbursement of bill shall be brought in action."

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner could not substantiate any of his arguments. He also failed to point out any patent illegality in the abovesaid communication. Further, no prejudice of any kind, whatsoever, has been shown to have been caused to the petitioner, while passing the impugned order, which may warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that present writ petition is wholly misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.

Resultantly, with the abovesaid observations made, present writ petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. 24.8.2016 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) AK Sharma JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Amit Kumar 2016.08.26 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document