IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11912 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: April 01, 2010 Baljeet Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.J.S. Puri Addl. Advocate General, Punjab .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) The only prayer made in this petition is for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to initiate the development works in Village Gidderpindi, Block Lohian (Khas), Tehsil Shahkot, District Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner, who is a Sarpanch, has made the efforts to initiate development works in the village, but impediments have been created by the respondents. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that it is the petitioner who has been creating hurdles in carrying out development works in the village. C.W.P. No. 11912 of 2009 - 2 – Learned State counsel has further submitted that letters were written to the petitioner to carry out all the pending works, but he did not take any action thereon. As a result, the respondents were left with no option, but to appoint an Administrator to carry out development works in the village. However, the petitioner had challenged the order appointing Administrator in Civil Writ Petition No.19096 of 2009, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.2.2010 (Annexure R-1). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book of the case. The respondents have taken a specific stand that it is the petitioner who has been impeding the development works in the village by adopting one tactic or the other. According to reply of the State, even the villagers from Village Gidderpindi approached the respondents regarding conduct of the petitioner. Sequel to that, Administrator was appointed by the respondents. The stand taken by the State remains unrebutted. No rejoinder has been filed to the reply filed by the State. It has also been submitted in the reply that despite repeated requests made by respondent No.2 for utilizing grant for the specific purpose, the petitioner took no action. Under the circumstances, there is no ground to interfere in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petition is not only devoid of merit but totally frivolous. C.W.P. No. 11912 of 2009 - 3 – The same is hereby dismissed with Rs.5,000/- as costs, to be remitted to the State Legal Services Authority, Punjab. April 01, 2010 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE