Chet Ram v. State Of Haryana And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P.No 2145 of 2015 Date of Decision: February 09, 2015 Chet Ram ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Rajan Gupta, J (Oral) Petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking a direction that his representation Annexure P/1 be decided and action be taken against Sarpanch of village Bamhnikhera, tehsil and district Palwal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that he filed a complaint before Deputy Commissioner, Palwal regarding certain embezzlement of panchayat funds by Sarpanch of village Bamhnikhera. According to him, despite directions given by Deputy Commissioner to S.D.M, Palwal, no further proceedings have taken place. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In the eventuality Deputy Commissioner is already seized of the matter, no interference by this court is necessary. Petitioner is, however, at liberty to make appropriate representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Palwal, which may be looked into. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (Rajan Gupta) Judge February 09, 2015 BB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P.No 2145 of 2015 Date of Decision: February 09, 2015 Chet Ram ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Rajan Gupta, J (Oral) Petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking a direction that his representation Annexure P/1 be decided and action be taken against Sarpanch of village Bamhnikhera, tehsil and district Palwal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that he filed a complaint before Deputy Commissioner, Palwal regarding certain embezzlement of panchayat funds by Sarpanch of village Bamhnikhera. According to him, despite directions given by Deputy Commissioner to S.D.M, Palwal, no further proceedings have taken place. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In the eventuality Deputy Commissioner is already seized of the matter, no interference by this court is necessary. Petitioner is, however, at liberty to make appropriate representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Palwal, which may be looked into. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (Rajan Gupta) Judge February 09, 2015 BB