HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.3316 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 23.03.2011 **** Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate for respondent No.4 Mr. Arpan Sabharwal, Advocate for respondent No.5 ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner Oil Company seeks a mandamus to the police authorities of District Ludhiana to provide assistance for the implementation of order dated 27.04.2010 (Annexure P9) passed by the Estate Officer of the Central Government under Rule 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1971. (2). It appears that respondents No.4 & 5 who are wife and husband filed two appeals against the above-mentioned eviction order i.e. one at Chandigarh (by respondent No.5) and another at Ludhiana (by respondent No.4). On the CWP No.3316 of 2011.doc - 2 – pretext of pendency of these appeals that no assistance has been provided. (3). On 23.02.2011, this Court directed the learned District Judge, Chandigarh to make an endeavour to decide the pending appeal preferred by respondent No.5 on merits. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the certified copy of the order dated 11.03.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh to show that no sooner the above-stated order was passed by this Court, respondent No.5 has withdrawn his appeal. (5). Another appeal filed by respondent No.4 is stated to be still pending before the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. (6). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Court at Ludhiana to decide the said appeal on the date fixed or subsequent thereto, but in all circumstances before 30.04.2011. (7). Subject to the final outcome of the appeal preferred by respondent No.4, the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana is directed to provide adequate police assistance to the petitioner-Corporation, if so required after 30.04.2011, for implementation of the eviction order dated 27.04.2010 (Annexure P9). (8). This order shall not preclude respondent No.4 to claim the alleged arrears of lease amount and/or pursue any legal action against the petitioner-Corporation in relation to the CWP No.3316 of 2011.doc - 3 – rights that might have accrued in her favour on the basis of the lease deed allegedly executed between the parties. (9). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 23.03.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge