IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.12243 of 2009 Date of decision: 31.8.2009 H.S. Ahluwalia. -----Petitioner Vs. Union of India & others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ORDER: 1. This petition has been filed for a direction to CBI to investigate complaint dated 2.2.1997, Annexure P-1, alleging loss caused in the Department of Telecom due to award of contract to Punjab Communications Ltd. for extraneous considerations. 2. Case set out in the petition is that on 24.4.1996, a contract was given by the Telecom Department to the Punjab Communication Ltd. The petitioner made a complaint, on which allegations were inquired into and were found to be correct. The petitioner filed another representation for further action by the CBI, which was rejected by the CBI vide letter dated 22.10.2008, Annexure P-10, on the ground that the complaint was analysed afresh and it was decided not to take up investigation on such an old matter having regard to limited resources of the CBI. The petitioner could approach the local police for necessary action. CWP No.12243 of 2009 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that there is a finding in the document furnished to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, showing illegalities in the action of the Telecom Department. In note dated 31.12.1998, Annexure P-8/1, it has been stated that Ravi Kant, the then Deputy General of the Telecom Department in league with Col. Sukhdev Singh of Punjab Communication Limited caused loss of 1.04 crores to the Telecom Department. 5. We do not find any ground to give direction sought in the petition, at this stage. If any loss has been caused to the Telecom Department, the Telecom Department itself can be approached to take necessary steps, in the first instance. The petitioner can furnish the material in his possession to the said department. 6. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, we dispose of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to furnish whatever material is available with him to respondent No.4, who may look into the same and take appropriate action in accordance with law, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The decision taken may be conveyed to the petitioner. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE 2 CWP No.12243 of 2009 August 31, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 3