IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1212 of 2008 Date of Decision: January 25, 2008 Ghumand Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. R.S. Ahluwalia, 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 respondent to process the final bill amounting to Rs. 3,17,283/- on account of construction/re-modeling of VR Bridge at RD- 298841/298900 of KBL executed through Sub-Divisional Officer, U.B.D.C. Rasulpur, Sub-Division Tarn Taran as also Rs. 6,24,499/- in respect of work order dated 20.4.2007, executed through executed through Sub-Divisional Officer, U.B.D.C. Jandiala, Sub-Division, Jandiala, District Amritsar, regarding re-construction of outlet with revised/enhanced water allowance from RD-0-23000 and further from 23000 to 58250 of Dehardeo Disty along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the due date till payment. In this regard, the petitioner has already sent a represent to the respondents on 4.9.2007 C.W.P. No. 1212 of 2008 (Annexure P.1), followed by a reminder dated 7.12.2007 (Annexure P.2). We have heard 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 had sent a representation, dated 4.9.2007 (P-1), 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 respondent to take a decision on the representation dated 4.9.2007 (Annexure P.1) 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 2 C.W.P. No. 1212 of 2008 (T.P.S. MANN) January 25, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3