IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2346 of 2010 Date of Decision: 23.02.2011 Tarsem Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. V.K.Kataria, Advocate, for the respondent No.5. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) This Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to take legal action against the respondents No.4 and 5. Such legal action according to the petitioner ought to be taken for dereliction of duties on the part of the the respondent No.4 on account of his failure to take necessary steps to lodge FIR against the respondent No.5. In so far as the respondent No.5 is concerned, according to the petitioner, it is liable to be prosecuted for the offences committed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 would indicate that the respondent No.4 during his tenure as the Drug Inspector, Barnala had actually carried out an inspection of CWP No.2346 of 2010 [2] the premises of the respondent No.5 in the course of which different drugs which were being held sold in an unauthorised manner by the respondent No.5, were seized. Steps were also taken by the respondent No.4 to have the drugs analyzed and thereafter the seized drugs were produced in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala as per the provisions of the Act. The written statement filed also indicates that a detailed investigation report was sent by the respondent No.4 to the State Drug Controller, Punjab requesting for grant of permission for prosecution of the respondent No.5 and that upon his transfer from Barnala, the respondent No.4 had handed over the file to his successor who had in the meantime filed a criminal complaint against the respondent No.5 for contravention of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The said criminal complaint was filed on 10.06.2010 and it can be reasonably presumed that the same is being tried by the learned trial Court in accordance with law. In view of the facts stated above we are of the view that the grievances raised in this Public Interest Litigation stand adequately taken care of. No further order in this regard will, therefore, be required. PIL stands disposed of in the above terms. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 23.02.2011 'ravinder'