C.W.P. No.19176 of 2010 (O&M -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.19176 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision.23.09.2011 Pritam Singh, Ex. Subedar s/o late Sh. Jiwan Singh, aged 67 years, resident of H.No.3/3, Haweli Bassi, Ward No.3, VPO Banur, Distt. Patiala, Punjab .....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Naresh Kumar Ojha, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Ms. K.K. Kahlon, Advocate for UOI. Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition has been filed by a person claiming to be riot victim challenging the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kalkaji, New Delhi dated 16.04.2010. Among other contentions, it is stated in defence that the order has been passed in Delhi and this Court does not have jurisdiction. The petitioner contends that his claim is well founded and the respondents had not granted compensation to which he was entitled to. This contention could be raised before this Court if it were to be taken as a writ petition making a claim in a scheme when there is no obstruction through any order. If C.W.P. No.19176 of 2010 (O&M -2- this claim could be defeated by a reliance on an order dated 16.04.2010 that disentitles the petitioner, unless such order is set aside in the manner known to law, the petitioner's claim cannot be entertained. With the order staring on face of petitioner, the writ petition cannot be adjudicated on merits without having the order assailed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The order passed by the authority could be challenged only before the Delhi High Court. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Delhi High Court for suitable redress and any plea of laches could be explained by the petitioner by pointing out to the pendency of writ petition before this Court. 2. The writ petition is disposed with liberty as aforesaid. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 23, 2011 Pankaj*