High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/13653/2018disposed of

Vijay Bansal v. State Of Haryana And ANR

2018-05-28Mr. Justice R.C. Kathuria (Retd.),Mr Justice Rajiv Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13653 of 2018 Decided on : 28.05.2018 Vijay Bansal . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and another . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA PRESENT: Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

**** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, A.C.J. (Oral) The petitioner has approached this Court by way of Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take effective steps to protect the crops of the farmers in Shivalik Foot Hill Range. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a representation (Annexure P-4) had been filed on 19th January, 2015, but no action thereon has been taken so far. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition at this stage. He, however, prayed that liberty be granted to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority by incorporating the grievance as raised in the present writ petition and direction be issued to the authority concerned to decide the representation expeditiously in a time bound manner in accordance with law.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, we dispose of the present petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed Jawala Ram 2018.05.31 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 13653 of 2018 - 2 - and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas as raised in the present writ petition, before competent authority. It is, however, clarified that in case such a representation is filed, the same shall be decided by the respondent authority within a period of two months, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE May 28, 2018 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No Jawala Ram 2018.05.31 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh