109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-25065-2025 Date of decision: 11.09.2025 Mahinder ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Pinki Mehla, Advocate for the petitioner (through V.C.). Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate for respondents No.3 & 4. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) and legal notice dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure P-2) expeditiously. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she would be satisfied if the legal notice (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner is decided by respondent No.4 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner. 3. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondents No.3 & 4 submits that they have no objection in case a direction is issued to respondent No.4 for time-bound consideration and decision of the legal notice of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. Neha 2025.09.12 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-25065-2025 -2- 4. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.4 is directed to consider the legal notice (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner and pass a speaking order, after affording him an opportunity to be heard, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.4. 5. Disposed of, accordingly. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 11.09.2025 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Neha 2025.09.12 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document