CWP No.7038 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.7038 of 2008 Date of Decision: 30.4.2008 Shri Mahender Sharma ............. Petitioner through Mr.SK Sharma, Advocate. Versus State of Haryana and others. ..............Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? . ***** Vijender Jain,Chief Justice(Oral). Petitioner, a resident of Village Behal, District Bhiwani, has filed this writ petition in public interest seeking a direction to the respondent- State to complete 65/70 feet wide road at its demarcation from Behal Mandi to Village Surpura Kalan and Surpura Khurd RD 0 to 335. Counsel for the petitioner contends that due to development in the area viz. construction of Anaj Mandi and setting up of Government Polytechnic and Engineering College etc., the proposed metalled road of the width of 65/70 feet is required so as to cater to the needs of the people of the area as also desist people from encroaching upon government land abutting the road, by constructing shops etc. It is further contended that the district authorities have recommended the proposal of the road being 65/70 CWP No.7038 of 2008 2 feet wide. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the paper book. From a perusal of document Annexure P-8, we find that against the said proposal the government vide its letter dated 12.2.2008 has sanctioned and approved an estimate of Rs.9,45,000/- for the construction of the said road of 33 feet width only. It is further stated by the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD (B&R) Charkhi Dadri that if any shops are found in the area of the road to be constructed, the same shall be demolished and the 33 feet wide road shall be constructed without wasting any time. We find that the matter involved herein is in exclusive executive domain and therefore calls for no interference. Dismissed . (VIJENDER JAIN) CHIEF JUSTICE 30.4.2008 (JASWANT SINGH) joshi JUDGE