IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.17182 of 2011 Date of Decision.14.09.2011 Hari Kishan son of Jagat Ram, resident of village Haveli, Post Office Mahalpur, District Hoshiarpur .....Petitioner Versus Union of India, Ministry of Finance (Insurance Division) through its Secretary, New Delhi and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner's grievance is that the Ombudsman before whom the case has been filed has not taken a decision on the complaint. There is a notice from the Ombudsman under Annexure P-5 directing the petitioner to file certain documents. The petitioner states that all those documents were sent through registered post and a copy of acknowledgment has been filed before this Court. 2. I have no means to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner suffice it for the purpose to say that the Ombudsman will look into the matter and will dispose of the grievance after serving notice to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks. 3. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 14, 2011 Pankaj*