IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 801 of 2008. Date of Decision: 11th May, 2009. Rajeev Puri ....Petitioner through Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate Versus Union of India & Ors. .Respondents through Ms. Geeta Singwal, Advocate 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 801 and 5427 of 2008 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these cases. The facts are, however, being extracted from CWP NO. 801 of 2008. The petitioner, who represents a Recruiting Agents Association of Northern India is aggrieved at the instructions dated 16.05.2007 [Annexure P-2] issued by the Protector General of Emigrants, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Government of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that a representation has already been submitted by the Association against the eligibility conditions prescribed vide the instructions under challenge. That representation is stated to be under consideration of the Competent Authority. The petitioner has raised some additional points also in this writ petition. In these circumstances, when the Competent Authority is stated to be seized of the matter, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that the pending representation may be considered and disposed of as early as possible and preferably within four months. Meanwhile, the petitioner/Association shall be at liberty to submit a supplementary representation to raise the additional issues, which shall also be considered by the Competent Authority along with the previous representation. Disposed of. Dasti. May 11, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE