IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 10320 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 7, 2009 HARJINDER SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. PK Goklaney, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the respondent-State states that the cause of action does not survive in view of the fact that the 'No Objection Certificate' was issued to the petitioner on 6.8.2009. Although the cause of action does not survive any more, the required 'No Objection Certificate' for applying for a Passport having been issued, however, I direct the Director, Public Instructions (Schools), Punjab, to have an inquiry conducted into the conduct of the Civil Writ Petition No. 10320 of 2009 2 officers/officials who have dealt with the case of the petitioner for grant of the 'No Objection Certificate'. I have taken note of the fact that the petitioner filed an application for issuance of the 'No Objection Certificate' on 12.5.2009. It was sent for approval to respondent No.3 who, however, returned it in original on 19.5.2009 to respondent No.4, on the ground that only respondent No.4 was competent to issue the 'No Objection Certificate'. The petitioner, consequently, met respondent No.4 personally, however, respondent No.4 refused to issue the 'No Objection Certificate' on the ground that the petitioner had taken a loan amounting to Rs.3 lacs from the ICICI Bank. The petitioner submitted an affidavit on 21.5.2009 clearly stating that the required amount can be deducted from his General Provident Fund. The loan amount had already been secured by way of pledging a sale deed. The petitioner had never been a defaulter. The petitioner kept on pursuing the matter with various authorities. The petitioner wanted to go abroad for attending the marriage of daughter of his real sister. The conduct of the persons dealing with such issues is highly reprehensible in so much as the petitioner is a SS Master and thereby working on a respectable post, however, has been treated as if the petitioner was a criminal and would abscond. Surely, the authorities have proceeded without taking into account the rights of the petitioner. I have also taken note of the fact that the petitioner had to approach this Court twice; earlier by way of filing CWP 9260 of 2009. Considering the above, once the inquiry is conducted and Civil Writ Petition No. 10320 of 2009 3 responsibility is fixed, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner would be compensated by way of Rs.10,000/- as costs, to be paid by the officer who is found responsible. The needful, in these regards, be done within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of. August 7, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?