!1S IN THE MON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^. WRIT PETItlON ft2) N,0.^^ OF 2009 / ^•-^ PETITIONER 0-y <?" f^^^ L^^y <Y\^^X"" ..•'"'.4'^ .V' •'y^' VERSUS R. N. Gupta, S/o Late Shri J. L. Gupta, aged 60 years Years, Qccupation - Retired Engineer - in -Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur and resident of Ambikapur, Disfrict Surguja (Chhattisgarh) .<••" ^" RESPONDENTS ws^ niw ^il 'i': tK .:^:-;£^.'.:'; •^^ ;!:::^. ':1. !"E^^?l^':;'".' IHSS!!l"-BS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through The Principal | Secretary, Department of Public Health Engineering, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Ghhattisgarh) 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Public Health Engineering, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Chief Technical Examiner, Government of Chhattisgarh, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) 4. P. C. Dalei,aged52,years Principal Secretary, Department of Public Health Engineering, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) WRIT _PETITIQN_ UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSnTLmON OFINDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, AND QTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DiREeTIONS.ORDERORORDERS: / .!•:.' The petitioner above-named most respectfullyi:submits as under: A 1*>' i-/' ,A 1 '^ 2. HIGH COURT OF CHi-iATTSSGARH : BILASPUR WRlTPETSTSGN-fS) N0.2527:0i£2009 PETmONER . ! ^;.N. Gupta" „ ,: Versus •1 ' RESPONDENTS State of Chhaffisgarh& Others (WritPetition underArticie 226ofths.Constitytion of india) Singis Bench :'i-!on'bie Shri Satish'K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shrs Manindra Shrivasteva, Sr. Advosafe wlth Ms Srrsita Ghai, Advocate Torthe pgtitionsr. ShriA.V. Sridhar, Ranei Lawyerfo.r the State. ORDER(ORXta : ^ ' fl^ssed on this 16u'<:iay oF:N6vember, 2009} Wlth ihs conssnt of iearned counseif'appearing for the partiss, the petition ishearci finsiiy. Shri Shrivasteva, tearned senjor counsei ^ppearing for the petitioner, submits that during pendency of this petifion tfts charge siieet dated 25 April,2009 hasbeenissued. In view Dflssuance ofcharge sheet nothing syrvives in this petition for adjudicatibn, at tiiis stsge. However, iearnetf seriipr counsel prays that ths petitionsr may ba penriittedto raisethe grounds taken inthe pi'esentpefition beforethe Enquiry Officer. It is furth^r prayed that the State may be directed to conciudethe enquiry as expeidjtiousiy as possible, to which tearned counsei appearingTortheState !lasno:objection. ; in view of foregoing, the wnt petition is dtsposed of with iiherty to the pstitioner to rafee a!l fhe issues before the Enquify Qfficer, If so advised. it is expected that the enquiry shall'be concludad within a reasonabie time. :_—— Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotrij Judge ws