IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18855 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 15, 2010. M/s Gulati Associates .....Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.ADS Jattana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl.AG, Punjab. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner is a Construction Company who is said to have been assigned works from time to time which have been executed by it to the entire satisfaction of the authorities and thereafter, final bills have been submitted in January/February, 2008. It is alleged that despite making various representations followed by a legal notice dated 24.8.2010 C.W.P.No .18844 of 2010 2 (Annexure P-18), the respondents have failed to release the due payment to the petitioner even for the works admittedly executed by it. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of relief sought in this writ petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the same with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim as contained in its legal notice dated 24.8.2010 (Annexure P-18) and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that if the petitioner is found entitled to any payment, the same shall also be released to it within the stipulated period. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. October 15, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE