IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 23029 of 2011 Date of decision December 13, 2011 Sanjeev Kumar Goyal ....... Petitioner Versus Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and another ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The claim by the petitioner is made for making the payment for the work done. The demand has been made through representations Annexure P-9, P-10 and P-12 but the same has not been answered favourably. Counsel for the petitioner states that he will be satisfied if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the demand and make appropriate disbursal within the reasonable period. 2. As ordered. 3. The second respondent shall consider the representations (Annexure P-9, P-10 and P-12) and take appropriate decision for making the payment within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. If the decision results in accepting the petitioner's claim and no further amounts are due from the petitioner to the respondents, the payment shall also be made within a further period of four weeks from the time when the decision is taken. 4. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly dispensing with notice to the respondents. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 13, 2011 archana