CWP No.8616 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.8616 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.12.2010 **** M/s. Avian Kintcrafts B-IV-1069 . . . . Petitioner VS. Union of India & Anr. . . . . . 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. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Darshan Bishnoi, Advocate for UOI None for respondent No.2 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct respondent No.2-Bank to decide its representation dated 2nd November, 2009 (Annexure P3) in accordance with law. (2). Though sufficient opportunities have been granted to the respondents to file their reply/affidavit, no step in that direction has been taken so far. (3). In these circumstances, however, without expressing any views on the merits of the petitioner’s claim, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider CWP No.8616 of 2010.doc - 2 – and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 2nd November, 2009 (Annexure P3) by passing a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (4). The petitioner, however, shall be entitled to supplement his above-mentioned representation in order to take up the plea of protection allegedly available under Section 35 and 40 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and these pleas shall also be dealt with by the Bank while passing the speaking order. (5). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 13.12.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE