CWP No. 17414 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * CWP No. 17414 of 2008 Date of decision : October 1, 2008 * * * * * Satyawan ..........Petitioner Versus Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak ...........Respondents * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH * * * * * Present: Mr. S.P Chahar, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * * * 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? M.M KUMAR, J. Through this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to confirm the services of the petitioner on his regularised post in compliance of his regularisation order dated 4.1.2005 (Annexure P-2). We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and perused the paper book. CWP No. 17414 of 2008 2 Before disposing of this writ petition, we would refer to the views of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344. In paras 38 and 39 of the judgment, it has been required that whenever notice under Section 80 C.P.C or under any similar provision are sent then it is mandatory on the part of State or Central Government or other authorities to send reply to such notice. It is well settled that before seeking a direction or a writ of mandamus, a demand justice notice is required to be served on the respondents as has been done in the present case. The petitioner has already sent a legal notice dated 30.1.2006 (Annexure P-5), to which no reply is stated to have been received. It has also been observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that in cases where such like notice/representation has not been replied then cost is required to be imposed. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we dispose of the writ petition at this stage with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the aforementioned legal notice by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. ( M.M KUMAR ) JUDGE October 1, 2008 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE