IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.336 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 13, 2010. All India Management Council .....Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Bhag Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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) The petitioner who claims itself to be a Non-Government- Organization (for short `the NGO'), seeks quashing of the order dated 30.11.2009 (Annexure P-8) whereby the Targeted Intervention Project assigned to it by the Haryana Aids Control Society in District Jhajjar, has been cancelled and it has been black-listed also. The impugned order has been passed by the Director General-cum-Project Director, Haryana State Aids Control Society, with reference to the bills submitted by the petitioner-NGO for payment of lacs of rupees under various heads purportedly incurred and/or payable to it on account of the work executed by the petitioner-NGO under the Targeted Intervention Project. While rejecting the petitioner's claim and black-listing it, the Competent C.W.P.No .336 of 2010 2 Authority has assigned as many as 36 reasons, including fabrication of bogus pay bills; non-availability of record pertaining to appointment of the staff; non-production of the records before the Inspecting Team including those prepared by the Chartered Accountant; showing payment of salaries in cash without even giving the details of the persons hired, as well as inflated and fictitious bills under various heads. It may also be observed that before passing the impugned order, the General Secretary of the petitioner-NGO was duly heard in terms of the direction earlier issued by this Court. The claim has been turned down also for non-production of any authentic proof in support of the alleged activities undertaken by the petitioner-NGO. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the voluminous records appended with the writ petition. In my considered view, the writ petition involves more than one disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. July 13, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE