BALWINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, particularly respondent No. 2, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the genuine grievance of the petitioner was not being redressed, he approached respondent No. 2 by way of a representation dated 16.1.2013 (Annexure P -5), but the same is also pending decision. He further submits that Field staff has verified the facts and has made recommendations in favour of the petitioner vide Annexures P -2 and P -3. However, the matter is not being taken to its logical end, without any justified reason. He concluded by submitting that the petitioner will be satisfied in case the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats -respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 16.1.2013 (Annexure P -5), by passing an appropriate order, in accordance with law.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats -respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the grievance raised by the petitioner, vide representation dated 16.1.2013 (Annexure P -5), passing an appropriate order thereon, as early as possible and in any case within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.