CWP No.100 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.100 of 2009 Date of decision: January 7, 2009. Smt. Veerwanti Devi ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 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: Shri Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks quashing of an order dated 13.2.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala whereby the petitioner's complaint against respondent No.4 – a stamp vendor working in the Barnala Court Complex at Barnala has been dismissed. As per the petitioner's allegations, she approached respondent No.4 for the purchase of stamp-papers worth Rs.100/-, however, respondent No.4 is alleged to have charged Rs.110/- from the petitioner. On this premise, she perceived that the stamp-vendor acted contrary to the conditions of his licence. CWP No.100 of 2009 -: 2 :- The record reveals that the petitioner was called upon by the Commissioner, Patiala Division to explain her viewpoint. She, however, did not turn up. On the other hand, respondent No.4 appeared before the Commissioner and explained that only Rs.100/- was charged from the petitioner towards the cost of the stamp-papers whereas Rs.10/- were charged for the photostat copies. The explanation rendered by respondent No.4 having been found convincing, the Commissioner, Patiala Division rejected the petitioner's complaint. It further appears that Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barnala also called upon the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 and their statements were recorded after the complaint had already been dismissed by the learned Commissioner. Taking advantage of the fact that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barnala also subsequently recorded the statements of the parties and yet took no decision in the matter, that the petitioner has approached this Court. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the documents on record, prima-facie, I am satisfied that the petitioner is acting as a tool in the hands of some business rival of respondent No.4; her complaint lacks bona fide, the contents of which have already been gone into by the competent authority. No interference is called for. Dismissed. January 07, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge