C.W.P NO. 15104 OF 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 15104 OF 2008 DECIDED ON : 04.03.2009 Om Prakash Gumber ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents C.W.P NO. 15103 OF 2008 Dalip Kumar ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents C.W.P NO. 15105 OF 2008 Neeraj Gumber ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Gill, DAG, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. L. S. Virk, Advocate, for respondents No.5 and 6. C.W.P NO. 15104 OF 2008 -2- SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) In deference to the order dated 16.01.2009, Mr. L. S. Virk, learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 has paid the costs to the counsel for the petitioner. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main case is also taken up for final disposal. This order shall dispose of C.W.P Nos. 15104, 15103 and 15105 of 2008, as common question of law and facts are involved. For brevity, the facts are taken from C.W.P No.15104 of 2008. The petitioner seeks directions for the release of his payment for the work executed by him on behalf of the Municipal Council, Abohar. The petitioner's grievance is that various work orders were allotted to him by the Municipal Council, Abohar which were executed to the satisfaction of the Municipal-authorities. The Municipal Council issued certain cheques for payment of the petitioner's dues. However, the cheque bearing No.729853 dated 31.07.2007 for a sum of Rs.1,47,800/- drawn on Canara Bank, Abohar, has been dishonoured twice by the said bank. Similar was the fate of another cheque bearing No. 797988 dated 03.08.2007 given to him by the Municipal Council. In these circumstances, the petitioner seeks a mandamus for the release of the due payments. C.W.P NO. 15104 OF 2008 -3- Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard and records have been perused. It transpires that the government has initiated some inquiry against this Executive Officer of the Municipal Council for unauthorised allocation of work to the petitioner. On the other hand, it is contended that the petitioner has already executed the allotted work to the satisfaction of the authorities. Having regard to the rival submissions, I am of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of the irregularities, if any, behind allocation of work to him by the Executive Officer. This, however, would not preclude the competent authority to take action against the officer concerned. As regards the petitioner, the Municipal Council is obligated to make the due payment to him. For that purpose, it will be open for the Municipal Council to verify the nature and extent of the work executed by the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and to release the necessary payments within two months thereafter. Disposed of. MARCH 04, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE