CWP No.17164 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.17164 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.03.2011 **** Manish Kumar Aggarwal . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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: Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. Bikramjit Arora, Advocate for respondents No.3&4 **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is a licensed contractor registered with the Food Corporation of India to whom the work contract for loading and unloading of the Railway boogies has been allotted. The petitioner alleges that respondents No.3&4 who are the office-bearers and members of the local Truck Union are causing obstruction in the lawful performance of the contractual obligations by him. (2). The official respondents have filed their reply/affidavit explaining that no complaint was ever received by them in this regard. They have also assured that in the event CWP No.17164 of 2010.doc - 2 – of any such complaint, necessary action as per law shall be taken. (3). It is also stated that there is a cross case registered against the attorney of the petitioner also in which an enquiry is still going on. (4). Learned counsel for respondents No.3&4 vehemently denies the petitioner’s allegations and states that they have nothing to do with the Truck Union or the alleged obstruction caused in the business activities of the petitioner. (5). In view of the above-stated stand taken by the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to ensure that no obstruction/hindrance is caused by anyone in the lawful performance of contractual obligations by the petitioner towards the FCI. It is further directed that the enquiry into the alleged cross case be also expedited and concluded in a time-bound manner preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 08.03.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge