IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. COCP No.3134 of 2011 Date of decision: 9.7.2012 Sukhwant Singh -----Petitioner Vs. Sh. Balwinder Singh & others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.C. Berry, Addl.A.G., Punjab. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. 1. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing CWP No.14958 of 2011, challenging the resolution dated 23.5.2011, whereby respondent No.3 was appointed as Acting Sarpanch of Village Boewal, Block Tarisikka, District Amritsar. 2. This Court passed following order on 9.9.2011:- “Present:- Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr.DAG, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Balwinder Singh, Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, is present in person. COCP No.3134 of 2011 2 Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, on the instructions of Mr. Balwinder Singh Respondent No.2, seeks and is granted two weeks more time to file counter affidavit. On the instructions of Mr. Balwinder Singh,learned State Counsel has made statement at the bar that meanwhile Annexure P-6 shall not be given effect. List on 20.10.2011. Meanwhile, petitioner can file rejoinder, if any, within two weeks thereafter. If affidavit is filed within two weeks, respondent no.2 need not appear on the next date of hearing. If, it is not filed, he shall remain present in the person on the next date of hearing. September 9, 2011 Sd/- (Alok Singh) Judge” 3. The said petition is still pending and the aforesaid order is continuing. 4. Admittedly, after passing of the aforesaid order, respondent No.3 still worked as Acting Sarpanch of the village in contravention of order dated 9.9.2011, as the then BDPO issued two cheques on 21.11.2011 for development works. However, it has been stated by the then BDPO that the aforesaid cheques were issued in favour of respondent No.3 under a mistaken belief. 5. A categoric stand has been taken by respondent No.1 that after issuance of the aforesaid two cheques, there is no further violation of the order dated 9.9.2011 of this Court. COCP No.3134 of 2011 3 Learned State counsel has assured this Court that during the continuation of the aforesaid interim order, there shall not be any violation. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of. July 09, 2012 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE