IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1595 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.9.2009 Ujagar Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Ravinder Singh and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: None. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.20713-CII of 2009 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. COCP No.1595 of 2009 As per the averments made in this petition, vide judgment dated 29.4.2009 passed in CWP No.6485 of 2009, the respondents in the contempt petition were directed to take cognizance of the legal notice/representation, if any, received from the petitioner and dispose of his pending claim by passing a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the aforesaid order. The petitioner averred that he made a representation to respondent No.4 on 9.6.2009 vide Annexure P-4 informing him about the order dated 29.4.2009 passed by this Court. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had also sent a representation dated 9.4.2007 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar vide Annexure P-1. However, no action has been taken by the respondents. I have perused the averments made in this petition. From the averments, I find that the petitioner has not placed on record any legal notice/representation submitted to respondent No.1 (State Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar) and representations/legal notices COCP No.1595 of 2009 (O&M) -2- allegedly issued by him have been sent only to SSP. According to the allegations levelled by him, he had purchased a bus along with the route permit from Tejinder Singh and Varinder Singh Dasua and thereafter, he had given the same to one Joginder Singh s/o Karam Singh r/o village & P.O. Chitti, P.S. Lambra, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, who had not returned the same to him and he had also issued a legal notice to him on 29.6.2006 and he sent a representation to the SSP, Jalandhar requesting him to register an FIR against the aforesaid respondent. The petitioner has not submitted any fact as to what transpired after 29.6.2006 till the filing of this contempt petition with regard to return of the bus to him. Thus, in the absence of any material on record and any assistance from the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not inclined to take cognizance of this petition. Dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek an appropriate remedy in accordance with law for redressal of his grievances. September 2, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE