IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1270 of 2008 Date of Decision: January 28, 2008 M/s Gangotri Security Agency (Regd.) …Petitioner Versus The Haryana State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Limited and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release payment of overtime to the petitioner. The petitioner herein is a security agency and has entered into a contract with the respondents for providing security services to the respondents at different centres from 16.1.2002 to 31.10.2002. It has been claimed that the security personnel deputed by the petitioner have performed 12 hours duty daily as against 8 hours, therefore, the C.W.P. No. 1270 of 2008 petitioner submitted the bills claiming overtime from the respondents. Several communications were made by the petitioner company. It has also been claimed that inter se correspondence has also take place between respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 1. On 14.4.2007 and 9.5.2007, the petitioner again wrote letters for payment of overtime dues from 16.1.2002 to 31.10.202, however, neither the needful has been done nor any reply is forthcoming. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the paper book. Before disposing of this writ petition we would refer to the views of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344. In paras 38 and 39 of the judgment it has been required that whenever notice under Section 80 C.P.C. or under any similar provision are sent then it is mandatory on the part of State or Central Government or other authorities to send reply to such notice. It is well settled that before seeking a direction or a writ of mandamus, a demand justice notice is required to be served on the respondents as has been done in the present case. The petitioner has sent representations, dated 14.4.2007 and 9.5.2007 (P-9 & P-10), to which no reply is stated to have been received. It has also been observed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court that in cases where such like notice has not been replied then cost is required to be imposed. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we dispose of the writ petition at this stage with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the 2 C.W.P. No. 1270 of 2008 representations dated 14.4.2007 and 9.5.2007 (P-9 & P-10) by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) January 28, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3