CWP No.3113 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.3113 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.3.2010 Baljeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Mandeep K. Sajjan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondents No.1 & 2 to take appropriate action as also to register a case against respondent No.3, who allegedly abused her position as member of Municipal Council; alternatively to issue a direction to decide justice demand notice dated 20th September, 2009, Annexure P-4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner is a permanent resident of Ferozepur City and thus, entitled to invoke extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this court. He submits that the petitioner came to know that respondent No.3 had recommended the name of one Raj Kumar for issuing him scheduled caste certificate and on the basis of that, Tehsildar had issued him a scheduled caste certificate. Raj Kumar actually belongs to Arora caste which falls in general category. The petitioner being a voter of Municipal Council, CWP No.3113 of 2010 2 Ferozepur, made a complaint in this regard to official respondents but no action was taken thereon. According to counsel, necessary action needs to be taken against the petitioner including registration of FIR under appropriate sections of IPC. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. It appears that petitioner made a complaint to the official respondents. Pursuant to same, the Deputy Director, Local Government, Ferozepur looked into the matter and submitted the report, Annexure P-3 to the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Local Bodies. It is, thus, inexplicable why the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition as the official respondents are already seized of the matter. Besides, locus-standi of the petitioner to agitate the issue is also doubtful. As regards prayer of the petitioner for registration of case against respondent No.3, the same is misconceived in view of law laid down by the apex court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (1) R.C.R. 392. I, thus, find no merit in this writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 31.3.2010 'rajpal'