C.W.P. No.23945 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.23945 of 2011 Date of Decision. 21.12.2011 Ashish Amrohi son of Sh. Sohan Lal Amrohi r/o 567, Macload Road, Opposite Police Station Sadar Amritsar .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Saurav Khurana, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks for a mandamus to carry out a fair and impartial probe into an alleged misuse of executive power by the Assistant Sub Inspector-5th respondent (wrongly referred to 4th respondent in the writ petition), who was alleged to have secured by deceit and fraud a property from his father. The petitioner's grievance is that the Police Standing Orders require permission prior to such purchase but no such permission has been taken. Any violation of the Police Standing Orders would be a matter for the Police Administration itself to be apprised of and take appropriate action. There exists no public interest in service jurisprudence for a person to be stating that some particular departmental action must be taken against an official for an alleged misconduct. The petitioner, if he is aggrieved for the loss of property or if he has any difficulty about entering his own village or C.W.P. No.23945 of 2011 -2- use of the property, he will have appropriate civil remedy and he cannot have a direction from this Court as regards the same through a writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that he has given a representation P-4 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to make an enquiry into the allegations. He cannot obtain any Court mandate for representation to be considered where the petitioner does not enjoy a vesting right to seek for such enforcement. It is not possible to accommodate any of the claims of the petitioner through writ petition. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 21, 2011 Pankaj*