IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTJSGARH WRIT PETITtON % N0. 44T7 OF 2008. BE7WEEN Petittoner M/S Bataji Bulk Movers Private Limitecf, 329 Central Facility Building APMC Market 1, Phase 2 Wasi New Mumbai , Through General Power of Attorney Holder,Rakesh Kumar Tnwari S/0 Ganga Prasad Thwari, aged about 31 years , resident of HIG 9 Housing Board Collony, Jamni Pafi, Korba, Tahsil and Distriet Korba (CG). VERSUS Respondents The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretaray Department of Pubtic Works Department, Mantralay, D.K.S. Buitding, Raipur(C.G.). The Cotlector, Korba, Tahsil and Distrirt Korba (CG). The District Transport Officer , Korba, Tahsil land Distriet Korba(CG). %—c 4. The Executive Engineer, Pubtic Works Division, Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (CG). 5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Sub Division Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (CG). 6. Ram Avtar Agrawal, Niji Punji Nivesh Contractor, Bilaspur, |Ra, Avtar Road Construction Jprivate Limiited 13, Chinar Comptex , Link Road Bilaspur (CG). 7. Sillu Agrawal S/0 Satyanarayan Agrawak, aged 40 years, Bajrang Automobiies Transport Nagar, Korba Jahsil and Drstrtet Kortoa (CG). WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226Q27 OF CONSTtTUTION OF tNDIA s^si^ rl<s"aa ^ ''iiiS ^V ^"?" (Tl N0. 4477 OF [IIIOHi^J' Versus tisponueiii M's. Baiaji Bulk Movers Private Ltd. ^he State of Chhattisaarh & others WRIT PETITiON UNDER ART1CLE 226;227 OF THE CONSTSTUTiON OF !NDiA : Hon'bSe Mr. K. Aanlhotri, J.l :- Snri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panej Lawyer rorthe State/ respondenis i'.in " tn R ;^sU. i ^.y <-?. ^eK iui i'Paasisri n~ flR'" riav nf &' -n' iat "f'10' ^ r^ i^-'sssiu 'w'i 'yu ^^sy v--s j''~i^yL3:i?S,; ui.^-'iU^ 1. Shri Tripathi, learned counsei appearinfl for the petitioner submits thai despiie the ietter dated 7/10/2009 (Annexure R-1) issusd by the Executive Enaineer, FubiicWorks Depanment, Koroa.Dlvision, Korba, the respondent No.7 has not paid the amount, wnicn nas oeen coiiected in exsess of toil amount. Desoite service of notice, ths resDondent No.6 & 7 have chosen not to apoear before this Court. 2. Shri Shridhsr, learned counsei appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 5 submits ihat the letter dated S'6'2010 (Annexure R-3) has io be comDiied with and the Staie Authorities wouid ensure that the order is compiied with as eariy as possibie prefsrabiy wlthin a period of 3 monsns. 3. in view of foregoing, Snri Tripsth' submits that nothing survlves for adiudication as this is oniv Tor coitection of excess amount from the resoondent No.6 on the hasis of decision taken by the State (JovernmenL 4, As a resuit, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judse asnoK