Ram Lal Garg v. Union Territory Chandigarh & ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 19385 of 2016 Date of Decision: 19.9.2016 M/s Ram Lal Garg and Co. Engineers and Govt. Contractors, through its Proprietor Sh. Ram Lal Garg .....Petitioner Vs.

Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar 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 legal notice dated 12.8.2016 (Annexure P-8), but the same is also pending decision. He further submits that the petitioner will be satisfied in case the Executive Engineer, C.P. Division No.1, U.T. Chandigarh-respondent No.4 Amit Kumar 2016.09.19 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document is directed to consider and decide his legal notice, within a reasonable time.

Civil Writ Petition No. 19385 of 2016 Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, lest it should prejudice the rights of either of the parties, the Executive Engineer, C.P. Division No.1, U.T. Chandigarh-respondent No.4 is directed to look into the matter, consider the grievance of the petitioner, raised vide his legal notice dated 12.8.2016 (Annexure P-8) 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 19.9.2016 Ak Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Amit Kumar 2016.09.19 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document