IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9363 of 2009 Date of decision: 31.03.2010 Sanjay Aggarwal ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Mr.I. D.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. None for respondents 2 and 3. ----- 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 would be satisfied if the representation which he had given, is considered and appropriate orders are passed. The written statement has already been filed which states that if the party was not able to comply with the directions within one year, the same could be extended on a written request from the concerned party. The contention was that no such request had been given and, therefore, it could not be considered. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that he has given a latter of request for extension on 17th August, 2009. He also undertakes to pay any penalty and additional charges that may be Civil Writ Petition No.9363 of 2009 - 2 - imposed for the delay in complying with the directions. The same be considered and appropriate decision shall be taken and communicated to the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 3. The writ petition is disposed of on the above directions. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 31.03.2010 sanjeev