IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2927 of 2008 Date of Decision: 17.11.2010 Sainik Singh ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and 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. Anand Chibber, Advocate and Ms. Meenu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. O.S.Batalvi, Advocate for respondent No.1 Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondents No.2 to 14 Mr. S.S.Salar, Advocate for respondents No. 15 to 19. **** MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J.(Oral) This writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the State Vigilance Bureau to look into the conduct and affairs of respondents No. 3 to 14 and to take action against respondents No. 15 to 19under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is alleged in the petition that respondents No. 15 to 19 are mis-utilizing the licence given to them for running the business of fertilizers and syphoning of the amount of subsidy by way of illegal sale of fertilizer in vague and haphazardous manner. The only instance given in the petition is that CWP No. 2927 of 2008 [2] respondent No. 15 has taken licence only for three places whereas it is doing the business at 18 places in Punjab inconnivance with respondents No. 3 to 14 and that licence too has been taken without payment of any fee. It is further alleged that the matter when came to the light, CBI raided one buffer point i.e. M/s Deepak Trade Links, Rajpura on 17.10.2006 and the department instead of filing the case against the said nominee of respondent No. 15 sit quite over the matter and did not take any legal action. No other instance has been quoted in the writ petition. 2. Upon notice, the respondents filed their separate replies. In the reply filed by the State of Punjab, it is specifically indicated that in respect of the case of M/s Deepak Trade Links, Rajpura, action had been taken by giving a warning to the said firm and no illegality or irregularity has been committed by any of the private respondents No. 15 to 19 and no other instance has been pointed by the petitioner. We are satisfied that the State has already taken action on the grievance raised in the petition, therefore, no further orders are called for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous with no order as to costs. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE (RANJAN GOGOI) 17.11.2010 JUDGE 'ravinder'