1LS H!GH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BiLASPUR EB: Hon'bSe Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'bie Shri Rananath. Chandrakar^_JJ. Writ Petltlon (0 No. 7144/2010 Petltioner . M/s Sai Construction through Partner Atul Shukla S/o Shrf Sudama Prasad Shukia, aged about 38 years R/o Green Park Colony, Bitaspur (C.G.) Respondents Vs. 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) The Engineer-in-Chief, Publlc Works Department, Raipur (C.G.). The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur region, Bilaspur (C.G.) - ^ Writ Petitlon under Article 226 of the Constitution of Sndla 1 Present: Shri. Rahui Jha, counse! for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 07.12.2010) Per Dhirendra Mishra. J Heard. 1. Learned counse! for the petitioner submlts that the petitioner has not ^' received any notice from the competent authority against the proposed actlon of iowering down his registration as a Contractor from category A-5 to A-4. Whereas, Shri Murthy, learned Deputy Advocate Generai for the State/respondents submits that the Engineer-in-Chief has already served notice dated 15.11.2010 to the ^ ^ ^.^i&.. ^ -m^s^ j t. ~"^J/ "^K ^ -'• %. petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the aforesaid action should not be taken against him for the reason indicated therein. However, the petitioner has not submitted his reply to the said notice. Shri IVIurthy, learned Deputy Advocate Genera! for the State/respondents submits that tender process initiated vide tender notice dated 27.09.2010 has been processed. However, the sarne has not been finailzed and the same is pending before the competent authority for decision. 2. Shri Rahul Jha, learned counsei for the petitioner, at this juncture, submits that the Instant petition may be disposed of wlth tiberty to the pet'rtioner to file reply to the show cause notice dated 15.11.2010 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief/competent authority and competent authority be further directed to take any declsion on the show cause notlce before finaiizing the tender process commenced vide tender notice dated 27.09.2010 (Annexure. P-1). Shri Murthy, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents submits that he has no objectlon If the petition is disposed of In the aforesaid terms. 3. In view of the above submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition Is disposed of in the followlng terms:- i) Shri Murthy, leamed Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents shali suppiy a copy of show cause notice dated 15.11.2010 issued to the petitioner by the Engineer- in-Chief during the course of the day. The petitioner shall fiie reply to the above show cause noticewithin a period of one week from today. .-^...^^....^.' "^ 1 ^i^ss. j %' ..^ ^••.^sy M <• li"':: ';iiNlttnii / li) , The respondent No. 2, in turn shali take decision on the show cause notice issued to the petitloner at the eariiest. iii) The tender process initiated vide tender notice dated 22.09.2010 (Annexure P-1) shaii not be finalized before taking any decision on show cause notice dated 15.11.2010 issuedtothe petitioner by respondent No. 2.. 4. C.C. today. ^—^—, i VJi^v Vijay Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge .L^L^LaiL^^^^^^^" ^