C.W.P NO. 14811 OF 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * C.W.P NO. 14811 OF 2005 Date of decision : September 12, 2006 * * * * * Raj Paul Bansal ............Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & others ...........Respondents * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S BHALLA Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Sukhdip Singh Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Pradip Bhandari, Advocate for respondents no. 3 & 4. * * * * * Viney Mittal, J. (Oral) Mr. Pradip Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 3 & 4 has produced before us a letter dated September 11, 2006 from the Additional Secretary, Local Government, Punjab to the Executive Officer, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana to the effect that on reconsideration of the matter, the Government had decided to charge restoration fee/other charges etc. in the case of the petitioner also as has been charged in other similarly placed cases as per the instructions dated December, 16, 1999. In view of the aforesaid communication, we are satisfied that since the matter is to be reconsidered by the authorities, therefore, the petitioner can always make a representation before the said competitive C.W.P NO. 14811 OF 2005 2 authority to show that the entire charges in terms of the instructions dated December 16, 1999 have already been paid by the petitioner and that nothing more is due. In view of the aforesaid fact, we dispose of the present petition with a liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the Secretary, department of Local Bodies, Punjab- respondent no.1 by appending all the relevant documents within a period of 4 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received. On receipt of the aforesaid representation, respondent no.1 shall take into consideration the various pleas raised by the petitioner and decide the claim made by him in accordance with law by passing a detailed and speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorised representative in this regard. Till the matter is finally decided by respondent no.1, the interim protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated September 16, 2005 shall continue. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of the usual charges. ( VINEY MITTAL ) JUDGE September , 2006 ( H.S BHALLA ) ritu JUDGE