HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR E: Hon’hle Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon’ble Shri Radhe ShEm Sharma, JJ. Writ Appeal No. 38412011 Appellant] Narendra Kumar Patel, aged Petitioner about 37 years, S/o. P.R. Patel, By Occupation Proprietor, Radiant Computer R/o. Rajapara, Kanker. Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary Ministry of Panchayat Department, DKS Bhawan, Distt. Raipur Chief Engineer, Pradhanmantri Gram Sadak Yojna, Development Commissioner ofhce, Raipur 3. Executive Engineer, Pradhanmantri Gram ' Sadak Yojna, Distt. Kanker Sub Divisional Officer, Rural Engineering I Service, Sub Division Kanker Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh r Gram Vikas Abhikaran Civil Lines Raipur. Respondents Writ Aggeal under Section 2 of the Chhattiggarh High Courts (Aggeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006. Present: Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for the appellant. Shri UNS Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondents, on advance copy. o R A L o R D E R (26m August, 2011.) v The following order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Heard on admission” V7 2 W.A. No.384/2011 2. The appellant/petitioner has med this appeal against order dated 6‘“ July, 2011 passed in w.P.(C) No.1 016/2011 by the learned Single Judge of this Coun. 3. By the impugned order, the writ Court, while dismissing the writ petition, has reserved liberty to the appellant/petitioner to make a representation to the respondent authorities for grant of interest and it has been directed that in the event, the representation is made, the same may be considered and decided by the respondent authorities in accordance with law, on its own merits, as expeditiousiy as possible, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. 4. The appellant was engaged by the respondent authorities to do the work of computer and photo-copy for the purpose of Pradhanmantri Gram Sadak Yojna. After working for certain period, the appellant submitted his bills. But the payments were not made. Consequently, the appellant tiled Writ Petition (C) No.521/2009, seeking direction to make payment of a sum of Rs.1 ,94,212/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and the appellant also claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 1. Lakh. The above writ petition was disposed of on 215‘ October, 2010 by passing the following order:- ORDER ORAL (Passed on r21 s day of October, 201 0) 1. At,the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the requisition has been sent to respondent No.5 for release of the amount As and when the amount is received , the same shall be released to the petition to - satisfy hislegalclaim \ 1 i l 1 3 W.A. No.384/2011 At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner concurs with‘the submissions made by the learned counsei appearing for the State and further submits that nothing remains in this petition for adjudication. However, learned counsel prays that the respondents may be directed to do the needful at the earliest. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. It is expected that the respondent authorities No.3 & 5 shall do the needful as expeditiously as possible. Sdl- Judge “ 5. Thereafter, the appellant received payment of Rs.1,94,212/— on 25‘“ November, 2010. The appellant then tiled Writ Petition (C) No.1016/2011 claiming interest @ 12% on the said amount from 02.9.2003 till 25.11.2010. The appellant also claimed damages to the tune of Rs.1 Lakh. ‘ 6. The writ Court held that the interest claimed by the appellant was in fact declined in the earlier writ petition as it was stated by the appellant that nothing remained for adjudication and the earlier writ petition was disposed of. Therefore, no direction for payment of interest can be made in the subsequent writ petition and thus, the writ petition was disposed of with the above liberty granted in favour of the appellant. ' 7. The contents of the earlier order dated 21.10.2010 would show that on the submission made by the learned Govt. Advocate that as soon as the amount is received, the same shall be released to the appellant to satisfy his legal claim,learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner concured to that submission and further \ \l 15 ‘ ! x x 4 W.A. No.384/2011 submitted that in View of the above, nothing remained in the petition for adjudication, Therefore, the view taken by the writ Court that no direction, in view of the above order, for making payment of interest can be issued, does not appear to be illegal. Moreover, the writ Court has already reserved liberty in favour of the appellant/petitioner to make a representation. Bini 8. In view of the above, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the writ Court. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed summarily. \L; g x_\y\\“ Sd/— lISunilKumar Sinha l , ‘ , Sd/_ i e Judge f l “ Radhe Shyam Shanna Judge