IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10197 of 2007 Date of Decision: 14.12.2009 Kuldip Singh and another ..Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. D.V.Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Rupinder Khosla, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondents No.1,3,4 and 5. Mr. A.R.Takkar, Advocate, for respondent No. 6. Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for respondent No. 7. Mr. S.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for respondents No. 8 to 20. *** MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral) An additional affidavit has been filed by the Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, stating that the grievance raised by the petitioners in the petition stands redressed. The relevant portion of the decision dated 27.11.2009 in the meeting taken by the Chief Secretary reads as follows:- C.W.P. No. 10197 of 2007 [2] “a. All physically executed works must be restarted and completed so as to derive benefits from the project in public interest. b. The design/drawing and the cost to be paid for the masonry tanks to be provided by the agencies will be prepared by the department of water supply and sanitation. c. All the installed LLDPE tanks should be removed and replaced by the masonry tanks. The cost of LLDPE tanks will be adjusted against the liabilities to be created after construction of masonry tanks. d) The legal consent, in writing, from the contractors for adjustment of payment made for LLDPE tanks against new works must be taken before allowing them the construction of masonry tanks. e) In villages where the work has not been executed physically so far, the work of Small Bore Sewerage System should not be started now. f) As matter is sub judice, therefore an additional affidavit may be filed in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court by the Department of Rural Development & Panchayats to seek appropriate directions from Hon'ble Court to implement above decisions in order to complete the pending works of this project.” Mr. D.V.Sharma, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, therefore, states that in view of the above, the grievance raised by the petitioners in the petition stands redressed and the writ petition may be disposed of. C.W.P. No. 10197 of 2007 [3] Mr. Takkar, learned counsel appearing for Punjab State Council for Science & Technology states that since the Scientists in the Department were only co-ordinating the design prepared by Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology (CIPET), they cannot be blamed for lapses, if any. We have also noted a fact from the additional affidavit filed today that by way of decision dated 27.11.2009 taken in the meeting, no financial loss will be caused to the State, therefore, we make it clear that this plea of Mr. Takkar be kept in mind by the State Government while finalising the recommendations submitted by the Vigilance Department. In view of the imminent need of the community in rural areas, we hope and trust and indeed direct the State Government to complete the project preferably not later than one year i.e. 31.12.2010. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. A copy of the order shall be given dasti to Mr. Khosla for compliance under the signature of the Bench Secretary. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 14.12.2009 'ravinder'