-KW!:F s IN 'LBEJIIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT 6ILASPUR CHHATTISGARH M_,C.C_. N0. ^ /2006 (Arising out oftheW.P. No. 942/2006) APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS \.b^ ^ ^y /-<r v ^'•"' ..^"^y <?~ 1. StateofChhattisgarh ~ Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. Under Secretary, Public Works ^Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3. Engineer-in-Chief, .F'ublic Works ^ Departanent, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 4. Superintending Engineer, Public , Works Department, Durg Circle, Durg, District: Durg (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS NON-APPLICANT_ PETITIONER Sundar Lal Markam • S/o Shri Amar Lal Markam, Aged about 45 years, Assistant Bngineer (Suspended), Office of the Engineer-in-Chief, Public ^ Works Department, Raipur 85 R/o HIG - 120, Vijeta Complex New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District: Raipur (Chhattisgarh) APPLICATION FOR_EXTENSION OFTIME FOR DECIDING REPRESENTATIQN KH®-22' 3^ •^K^T<<||t§Slw;i$?R«ff^iy< rsfs-y •S'slv n"pK!:n»!=firTy; 'reS}!£njsfi.s $ ' 3l1^T?iT R-ii+sn^r si>*fiq>«Ra n' t|T*(gTs»gi<*» ^3^1 • lci<>«d' 3<i^ie«iw<«Ie(i Cont.Pet.Ne. 108/061 10-7-2006 Shri Sflu'ijay Kj ?Tycb T^H? "yr^K?^ T?^€f 200 ! W^IW- SR'I'H; w?PSf ^ Agrawijtl, counsel for •t+ie ^etitioners/ respondents. 5hri Prashant Mishra, State/applicdnt. Heard. This common order shall i ' • • ' 108/2006, 1Q9/2006 j& 110/| 302/2006 & 303/2006.i It is pointedout Ithat whit^ i the petitioners/r®spon9ents, ti Chhattis9arh ond the cajthorities the representtttion of ^he peti- i from the date of prodyction of pointed out that in comptiance of petitioners submitted fheir repi authorities, but the same haye no It is pointed out that t extension of time in decidin9 here-m on the ground ttiat due t< lAddl. Advocate. fieneraf for •rfie <<>i'titfi<ft-< tiitidTffrsl<il <i»it^i< ^gfwran^r j 109/06 & 110/06 and j 302/06 & 303/06 dispose of Con-fempt Pe|'ition Nos. ^006 and M^.C. Nos}301/2006, !•i ? disposing of writ petitio^s filed by lis Court directed thelState of concerned to consider bnd decide |oner within a penodoftsix weeks the representation. Itisfurther the order passed by this Court, tiie I'esentations before the sconcerned >fr been decided tili date. i •i the State has also fileel CC for E representation of the petitioner tHe bona fide reasons, the iame could ^i...--(ift^iitet) 000 .Oi •^0(S£-t'<iu EC-22 3vf <ffSfSSVSf,"BSIWI®, 1^1 •iSRW-f^W .fiM*B' 9gO'°!». "".SFI,. 2f Rre^ '^n^rair^ R-ii»diA<i stxiio'uRa GowriM not be deejd^within 1+ie stipul(r| is no mala fide... • ' 1 ^^^^^^^ ^ ought the erxi^ afjustice time iS grante(( Let the representation n^ authority within four wefeks frorr| tha copy of this order. i. In that view of the matterl i . 109/2006 & 110/2006 i and Mj 303/2P06 stand disppsed of at th|s ; Copy of this or<|er • be 108/2006, 109/2006 & 110/^006 302/2006 <&303/2Q06.i i c - c • i 'pi<iFCT<ii>< <<i«<iTffrs><iiA<£|< ^3I^tT3fI^T •ed period. It is stated 1+iat there o ho.ve been decided. However, in w be decided bv the cjompetent •t+ie date of receipt/production of 1108/2006. 302^2006 & Contempt Petitiqn Nos. stage. laced in Contempt Petifion and M.C.C. NosJ Nos. 301/2006, Sd/. Fakhruddin Judge