IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8565 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.11.2011 M/s Yadav Builders, Jalalabad Road, Muktsar (Punjab) through its partner Shri Arun kumar. ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through Secretary, P.W.D. (B & R), Mini Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:None for the petitioner Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. At the previous hearing on 24.08.2011, I had recorded the fact on the basis of the representation of the counsel that the petitioner has himself given an endorsement in writing that nothing was due against the agreement and that rates, measurements and quantities are accepted. The counsel for the petitioner was directed to take instructions from the petitioner. 2. At the subsequent hearing on 14.10.2011, the counsel for the petitioner had taken further time to take instructions and today there is no representation. 3. The writ petition is dismissed in the light of the statement given by the counsel appearing for the State. NOVEMBER 09, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE