HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.2684 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.02.2011 **** Lakhwinder Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner appears to have made a complaint against the alleged malfunctioning of respondent No.5. (2). Since there are selective averments made in the writ petition, it is difficult to understand the modus operandi of filing the writ petition against an employee. (3). Be that as it may, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to look into the petitioner’s complaint but only after ascertaining his bona fide and if the authorities are satisfied that the complaint has been made in public interest, the same shall be examined in accordance with law. (4). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. CWP No.2684 of 2011.doc - 2 – 14.02.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 2