High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/3617/2017dismissed

Daljit Singh v. State Of Punjab & ORS

2017-02-23Mr. Justice Arun Monga2 pages

CWP No.3617 of 2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3617 of 2017 Date of Decision.23.02.2017 Daljit Singh .......Petitioner Vs State of Punjab and others ........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Narinder Singh Dadwal Advocate for the petitioner.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL -.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) The petitioner has approached this Court in writ jurisdiction seeking following relief:- "Civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No.2 to 4 to take appropriate legal action on the enquiry report dated 02.07.2010 (Annexure P-3) within some stipulated period submitted by respondent No.7 against respondent No.8 who embezzled the grant of Rs.2.50 lacs sanctioned by S. Hira Singh Gabria, the then Cabinet Minister Punjab for the repair of college building and thus caused loss to the State Exchequer.

And/OR Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be issued in the interest of justice. After the aforementioned enquiry, the District Development Officer had written letter to the Director on 13.07.2010 communicating the enquiry report. Thereafter, nothing surfaced except the letter dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure P-5) whereby the Controller, Panchayati Raj (Finance) had written a letter to Secretary, Government of Punjab, PANKAJ KUMAR 2017.03.01 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No.3617 of 2017 -2Education Department regarding the complaint. There is no averment as to what happened thereafter between the interregnum period, except reference to representation dated 02.04.2015 (Annexure P-6). Since the averments are conspicuously absent, I do not deem it appropriate to issue direction for deciding the representation as the petitioner has woken up after seven years. The writ petition is hit by doctrine akin to delay and latches. No ground for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE February 23, 2017 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2017.03.01 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document