COCP No. 1607 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 1607 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.8.2010 Anti Corruption Crime & Investigation Cell .....Petitioner Versus D.S. Bains and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 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? Present: Shri Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri M.C. Berry, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Shri Samarth Sagar, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Shri Vikas Behl, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. Shri Rakesh Sharma, Advocate, for Shri R.K. Singla, Advocate, for the interveners. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the encroachment on the western side of the G.T. Road, Phillaur, has been removed, but the encroachment on the eastern side has not been removed. It is admitted that Civil Writ Petition No. 3196 of 2010 along with 70 other writ petitions, has been decided by this Court on 21.7.2010, whereby the Municipal Council, has been directed to carry COCP No. 1607 of 2009 [2] out the entire process of determining the encroachment afresh towards the eastern side. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there a lot of encroachments, whereas the order has been passed in respect of few, therefore, remaining encroachment should be ordered to be removed. I do not find any merit in the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. More than 70 writ petitions have been decided by this Court on 21.7.2010, wherein directions have been issued to determine the extent of encroachments afresh. In view of the said fact, no further orders are called for in the present petition. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court after the Municipal Council, re- determines the extent of encroachment as ordered in the aforesaid order. Hence, the present petition is disposed of as infructuous. The Rule is discharged. [HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 12.8.2010 ds