IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 1133 of 2008 Date of Decision : January 28, 2009 ASI Chanan Singh and another .....Petitioners Versus Dr. B.C. Gupta and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. A.P.S. Shergill, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. T.P.S. MANN, J. On January 07, 2008, a Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of C.W.P. No. 19572 of 2007 filed on behalf of the petitioners and others, directed respondent No. 2 to take a final decision on legal notice, attached as Annexure P.8 therein, by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the order passed by the Division Bench on 7.1.2008, was duly conveyed to the respondents, but inspite of the same, no action has been taken by respondent No. 2 and, therefore, he be punished for committing the contempt of the Court. Reply has been filed by respondent No. 2. In para 2 of the same, it has been submitted that the legal notice sent by the petitioners stood considered and rejected by him by passing a speaking order dated 22.1.2009. C.O.C.P. No. 1133 of 2008 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the order dated 7.1.2008 was required to be complied with by respondent No. 2 within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the order, but respondent No. 2 took unduly long,i.e. almost a year's time in considering and disposing of the legal notice submitted by the petitioners. As it is clearly mentioned in para 2 of the reply submitted by respondent No. 2 that procedural delay had occurred in passing the order dated 22.1.2009 on the legal notice submitted on behalf of the petitioners and others, it cannot be said that respondent No. 2 intentionally avoided taking a final decision on the legal notice submitted by the petitioners. Moreover, respondent No. 2 has sought unconditional apology, which is accepted. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed and the rule is discharged. The petitioner shall be, however, at liberty to challenge the order dated 22.1.2009, if so advised. ( T.P.S. MANN ) January 28, 2009 JUDGE satish