C.W.P. No.23673 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.23673 of 2011 Date of Decision. 20.12.2011 Joginder Singh son of Puran Singh, resident of H.No.1661, Gali No.12, Dashmesh Nagar, Gill Road, Ludhiana .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. R.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. 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 petitioner seeks for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 5 to take appropriate action against respondent Nos.6 to 9 for what, according to the petitioner, was a wrong committed in making some mutation entries that were indicted by the 5th respondent, the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Learned counsel refers to me a communication made by the 5th respondent to the 4th respondent-Deputy Commissioner finding that the mutation entries that resulted in a loss of ownership of about 250 square yards to the petitioner. I cannot understand how an ownership could be lost by mutation entry but if that is the perception that the petitioner has and the petitioner has come by any harm, he could take appropriate civil action for damages or for declaration of title. 2. There is no public interest in service jurisprudence. The C.W.P. No.23673 of 2011 -2- petitioner cannot seek for direction that departmental action must be taken against one of the subordinates of respondent No.1. I directed the counsel to give such support through any Rule that would enable a person who is not working under the same employer to seek for such enforcement. The counsel has only to say that he cannot point out to any Rule but he is a person directly affected by the action of respondents No.7 to 9. I cannot still allow the petitioner to have a new approach to law to seek for a direction that some action could be taken against a government servant that could alter the conditions of service. 3. A prayer that is sought for in the writ petition is not possible of enforcement at the instance of the petitioner and it is declined. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 20, 2011 Pankaj*