... . ...... .. ww/ ‘ @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) NO. ' g§§ I201 1 /‘: Sohanlal Sinha, S/ o Late Lallu Ram Sinha, Aged about 42 years, PETITIONER R/o Village Saigona, Post — Karesara, Tahsil — Saza, Distt. Durg-(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /‘1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Public Hea1th E Secretary, Engineering Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Mantralaya, Raipur /2. Engineering in Chief, Public Health Engineering Department (P.H.E.), Raipur-(C.G.) 3. Superintending Engineer (P.H.E.), Public Health ‘ Engineering Department, Durg, Distt. Durg— (C.G.) Assistant Engineer (P.H.E.), Public Health Engineering Department, Sub Divisional Officer, Saza, Durg—(C.G.) / 5x WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS PROHIBITION CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER 7/b HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH i BILASPUR ~ WRIT PETlTlON (S) NO. 855 OF 2011 PETITJONER Sohanlal Sinha Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. RESPONDENTS Present :- Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the Sta’te/ respondents. V ORDER ORAL . (Passed on this 21 day of January, 2010) The petitioner has preferred a representation dated 5.11.2010 (Annexure P/6) seeking for the same relief which the petitioner has sought in this petition. The Chief Engineer, Public' Health & Engineer, Department, after having considered the representation of the petitioner, has directed the Superintendent Engineer to look into the matter, in accordance with law by communication dated 9.12.2010 (Annexure Pl7). The petitioner, without waiting for a reasonable time, has rushed to this Court immediately after completion of four weeks. It is well settled that a reasonable time i.e. three to six months should be afforded to the authorities to act on the representation, may be communication in this case. Even if the order of the Chief Engineer is not complied with by the Superintendent Engineer, the best course would have been to approach the Chief Engineer, again. k 3. lt is beyond once apprehension asto how the adjudication, whatsoever, is necessary at this stage. The action of the petitioner approaching to this Court within a short span of time, itself amounts to misuse of the judicial process, when the ofucers are in process of redressing the grievance of the petitioner. 4. ln view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok 2 . y