Letters Patent Appeal No. 888 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Letters Patent Appeal No. 888 of 2010 Date of Decision: 25.3.2011 Karnail Singh and Another …Appellant Versus The Kiratpur Sahib Truck Operators Co-operative Transport Society Limited and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Gurbachan Singh Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No.2 to 6. Mr. Sanjeev K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.7. Ranjan Gogoi, C.J. (Oral) The challenge in the appeal is against the part of the order dated 21.7.2010 by which the respondents No. 6 and 7 have been Letters Patent Appeal No. 888 of 2010 2 directed to jointly pay a sum of ` 1,00,000 as compensation to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner and furthermore the displeasure of the Court, with regard to the conduct and acts of the said respondents, has been directed to be recorded in the service books of the said respondents. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The compensation has been ordered to be paid jointly by the respondents No. 6 and 7 on account of their highhanded actions in sealing the office of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner. There can be no manner of doubt some amount of highhandedness and arbitrariness has been displayed in the conduct of the aforesaid respondents. However, we are of the view that taking into account the totality of the facts of the case, a smaller amount of compensation i.e. ` 25,000 will meet the ends of justice. Insofar as the order of the learned Single Judge directing the displeasure of the Court to be recorded in the service book of the appellants is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner does not object to the deletion of the said direction and has left the matter to the Court. In view of the above it is not necessary for the Court to go into the legality of the said direction and as agreed to by the learned counsel for both the sides, the aforesaid directions shall stand interfered with. In other words, no entry in the service books of the appellants shall be made on the basis of the order dated 21.7.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 11759 of 2010. Letters Patent Appeal No. 888 of 2010 3 This will dispose of the appeal. The amount of compensation awarded by the present order shall be paid within seven days. (Ranjan Gogoi) Chief Justice (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 25, 2011 “DK”