CWP No.10181 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10181 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.11.2010 Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana ....Petitioner Versus Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Bhanot, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. K.S. Dhillon, Advocate, for respondent No.2. 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? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) This Court vide order dated 13.7.2009 directed the petitioner- Corporation to pass fresh order on the basis of order dated 23.4.2008 within a period of six weeks after affording opportunity to be heard to respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that vide order dated 28.8.2009, photocopy of which is accepted on the record, in compliance of order of this Court dated 13.7.2009, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, has passed order dated 28.8.2009. Counsel appearing before me stated that respondent No.2 could not appear before the Commissioner although notice was issued to respondent No.2. CWP No.10181 of 2009 -2- Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that he will definitely appear before the Commissioner and Commissioner may be directed to pass order de novo in accordance with law after hearing respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection in it. Present petition stands disposed of with the direction that Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, shall pass fresh order after hearing respondent No.2 in accordance with law within 90 days from the date certified copy of this order is placed before the Commissioner. Respondent No.2 shall file his reply before the Commissioner on or before 15.12.2010. On 15.12.2010, Commissioner shall fix a date for hearing of the matter and shall pass final order in accordance with law after hearing the respondent No.2. (Alok Singh) Judge November 18, 2010 R.S.