C.W.P. No.23797 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.23797 of 2011 Date of Decision. 20.12.2011 Manohar Lal son of Shri Kirpa Ram resident of 16, Arya College Market, Opposite Bus Stand, Panipat .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to take appropriate departmental action against respondent Nos.5 and 6, for, according to the petitioner, a grave wrong has been committed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 in harassing the petitioner in some matrimonial dispute. The petitioner placed reliance on an intra-departmental report by the Deputy Superintendent of Police to Superintendent of Police that the respondent No.5 had not acted properly and it has been found expressed in their communication that departmental action must be taken. The decision to take departmental action must reside with the person that runs the department and cannot avail to any member of pubic to seek such enforcement. I asked the learned counsel to show any particular rule, which will empower him to seek such enforcement and the counsel's response would be only that even the Police C.W.P. No.23797 of 2011 -2- Authorities in their communication expressed that respondent No.5 had not acted properly and some departmental action must be taken. It shall be left to department to take action as it is necessary and if there is no such rule that empowers the petitioner to seek for such enforcement, the relief through a writ of mandamus is impermissible. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further seeks liberty to take appropriate direction for consideration of representation. If I do not find that the petitioner has any locus standi to seek such enforcement, the question of granting such a liberty does not arise. 3. The writ petition is not legally tenable and it is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 20, 2011 Pankaj*