IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12272 of 2010 Date of Decision: 16.11.2010 Jaswant Singh ...Petitioner Versus Chandigarh Administration & others. ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI. 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 : Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Standing Counsel, for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Davinder Lubana, Advocate, for respondents No. 6 and 7. Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 8. **** MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J.(Oral) This writ petition has been filed challenging the 'Gram Parvesh Tax' imposed by respondents No. 6 to 8 to be in violation of Article 243-H of the Constitution of India as well as Section 88 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (as extended to U.T. Chandigarh). 2. Upon notice, the respondents appeared and respondents No.1 to 4 file their reply wherein it is stated that the Gram Parvesh Tax has been withdrawn w.e.f. 26.10.2010. In this view of the matter, the grievance raised regarding imposition of said tax stand redressed. CWP No. 12272 of 2010 [2] 3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner then pressed his for prayer No. (iii) which reads as follow:- “for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 and 2 to conduct thorough probe through respondent No.5 as to under what circumstances and under whose patronization/connivance the 'Gram Parvesh Tax' in village Daria (U.T. Chandigarh) has been imposed/collected in broad daylight without any check resulting into bungling of public exchequer to the tune of lacs of rupess and to take necessary action to brought the culprits to the books.” 4. In our view, this prayer cannot be granted by this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to agitate this issue on the administrative side. With the aforesaid liberty, this petition stands disposed of. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE (RANJAN GOGOI) 16.11.2010 JUDGE 'ravinder'