IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20826 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 09, 2011. Ramanpal Singh Malhotra .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.S.C.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is a Contractor running a security agency. It is alleged that as and when the petitioner enters into a contract to provide 'security services' to a Government agency, the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 as well as the Factories Act, 1948 are violated by the Government Agencies. The petitioner accordingly seeks a direction to the Labour Commissioner, Punjab to 'implement the express provisions of law'. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the writ petition is wholly mis-conceived. No direction needs to be issued to an Authority for implementation of the law, as such an Authority is CWP No.20826 of 2011 [2] otherwise under an obligation to implement the law. However, if there is a violation, the remedy, if any available in specific relation thereto, can be invoked. In case the petitioner feels that the contract was illegally breached, he has got remedies under the law. Suffice it to observe that the petitioner cannot be compelled to enter into an 'illegal contract' and if there is any such contract exists, he need not volunteer to become party thereto. In these circumstances, no case to issue the desired relief is made out. Dismissed. November 09, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE