CWP No.2482 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.2482 of 2010 Date of decision: 11.2.2010 Amit Arya ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) The petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondents not to transfer area of Housing Board Colony, Ward No.10, Sector 15, Sonepat to Ward No.12, Delhi Camp, Sonepat. It has been averred in the writ petition that there are 7000 voters in Housing Board Colony, Sector 15, Sonepat, whereas 5000 voters are in Ward No.12. Both wards i.e. Ward Nos.10 & 12 are not contiguous and there is distance of about 2 kilometers between them. However, there is a proposal to transfer Ward No.10 comprising in Housing Board Colony, Sector 15, Sonepat to Ward No.12. Thus, the present writ petition has been preferred praying for a direction to the respondents not to transfer ward No.10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that though it is clear from a news paper report published in 'Dainik Jagran', New CWP No.2482 of 2010 2 Delhi dated 26th January, 2010 that no change would be effected in the wards, however, efforts are afoot to transfer ward No.10 to ward No.12. Thus, a writ in the nature of mandamus needs to be issued in order to prevent the respondents from taking any such action. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. There is nothing on record to show that the transfer of ward, as stated in the petition is contemplated by the respondents. The only documents placed on record are a news item in a local daily and a representation made to the Deputy Commissioner. It is not clear how this petition is maintainable when admittedly no decision has been taken regarding demarcation of wards till date. The petition appears to be totally frivolous. No interference is, thus, called for in writ jurisdiction of this court. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE February 11, 2010 'rajpal'