Civil Writ Petition No. 14939 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ---- Civil Writ Petition No. 14939 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.8.2010. Subhash Chander --- Petitioner Versus Managing Director, PUNGRAIN and others --- Respondents --- CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar --- PRESENT: Mr. Dheeraj Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing orders dated 24.6.2010 (Annexure P-10 and P-11) passed by the District Manager, Markfed, Jalandhar and also the order dated 8.7.2010 (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent No.5, on the ground that the same are illegal and smack of arbitrariness. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 11203 of 2010. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the said petition was that his contract for labour and cartage upto 8 Kms of the Anaj Mandi, Jalandhar City was approved but the respondents therein in violation of the contract were requiring him to work beyond 8 Kms. Of the Anaj Mandi.The writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 29.6.2010, with a direction to the petitioner to Civil Writ Petition No. 14939 of 2010 -2- make representation to respondent No.1 there. It was ordered that in case such a representation was filed, respondent No.1 there shall dispose of the same in accordance with law within 15 days thereafter and convey the decision to the petitioner. In compliance to the said direction, the representation made by the petitioner has been disposed of by the Managing Director, vide order dated 29.7.2010, the operative part thereof reads thus: “As per PR 66 (Mandi Proforma) Cartage charges upto 8 KM work shall be done by Labour Contractor and above 8 KJM the transport contractor will do the work. In this way in this case Labour and Cartage Contractor would work up to 8 KM for Cartage and whole work of Mandi has to be done by him. Therefore, after 8 Km Labour and Cartage Contractor's responsibility shall not be fixed.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the petitioner is left with any grievance after the decision of the representation made by him. At this stage, the counsel prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition to approach this Court in case the respondents act against the decision taken, vide order Annexure P-13, passed on 29.7.2010 by the Managing Director. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty in terms of the prayer made above. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) JUDGE August 20, 2010 rkmalik