← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/1824/2015disposed of

Ravinder v. Lokayukta Haryana & ORS

2015-02-04Mr. Justice Harbans Singh Rai2 pages

CWP No.1824 of 2015 -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1824 of 2015 Date of Decision.04.02.2015 Ravinder .......Petitioner

Versus

Lokayukta, Haryana and others ......Respondents

Present:

Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner need not feel aggrieved about the nature of order that has been passed. The petitioner's grievance is that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Canal Officer could only be assailed before the higher authorities namely the Divisional Canal Officer or the Superintending Canal Officer and it cannot be a matter of interference through the Lokayukta as sought to be done by the private respondent herein. The Lokayukta by his order has not made any interference but he has only taken note of the submissions made by the complainant himself that he will make application before the Divisional Canal Officer having jurisdiction over the matter. The application has been, therefore, treated as disposed of that no further action was called for. The Lokayukta has not set aside any order passed by the competent authority. He has only taken note of the submissions made by the complainant that he will take appropriate steps before the Divisional PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.02.06 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No.1824 of 2015 -2Canal Officer whom the petitioner himself is prepared to admit before me through his counsel that he will be the appropriate authority. I do not think there is any scope for interference. 2.

The counsel for the petitioner says that the Lokayukta's adverse observations against the petitioner shall not be used against him. I do not think there is any adverse observation made against him. If that is the petitioner's perception, I reiterate that if there are any adverse observations by the Lokayukta which could be perceived as such, the same will not be made out against him.

3.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 04, 2015 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.02.06 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document