a IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH ATBILASPUR Writ Petition fC) No. ^^Oa) /2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ttO-'" ,,.,..1"- ...-/y ^ ^ :-<z /1] \° ^ .....••- ^ Smt. Kunti Gupta, W/o. Rajkumar Gupta, aged about 45 years, Class A- 4, Contractor, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Dislricl Raipur (C.G. ) Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Sirpur Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3] Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Parikshetra, Raipur, N.H. Campus, Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ^4] /'--5] Rxecutive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highvvay, Division Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway, Circle Bilaspur, Di.strict Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1NDIA 1 ^ HIW CWMtr WF CHHAmSftARH AT MUISnW bIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI I.N.QU&&USI < HON'M.E SHRI N.K. AMRWAL. JJ. WftIT PETITION (Cl N0.3209/2010 PETITIONER RESPONOENTS Vs Smt. Kuntl 6uptn State of C.6. A others Present: Mr. Manoj Paranjpc, Advocute for thepetitioner. Mr. G.t>. Waswuni. 6ovt. Advocate for the respondent. ORAL JU&6MENT (Passed on 05th July, 2010) I.M. Ouddusi. J; 1. With the consent of thepartiiBs.th· matter is hjeard fjnetty^ Z. By mcans of tJiis.urrjt.petitjon the petitioner, has prayed for quashment of order dated 20.4.20t0 (Anne?igure P-1) posoed by the respondent No.3 andalso a direetion t<; th<! reaspondents to consider the case of.the petitiftnjer ragar.ding recovery of amount. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is A-4 Class registered govemment contractor, received a sho*» cause notice dated 07.04.2010 (Annexure P-8) calling upon her to show couse us to why an amount of Rs.44,85,646/- should not be recovered from the petitioner on account of non-submission of original invoice of coal tar and for using sub-standard coal tur in^,i6ecuti<>fl.of_'rt|e.<MiB,tra<;tt»ork.. The last date for sufainittjng .t^B-j'^tly t!9 tht.said ?h<»R,c<ltti.sie, notice *»as 16.4.2010. However, the petition<s.r didiwtj|iiy(|(>iitit her repty and aeco.rdingly, -fln order of riusov^ry of, Rs.48,77,066/- was psssed on 20.4.2010. 4. We have heord learned counsel for the partjgs. W&,hi9aafc.,!0l<o perused the record. S. Infact the sajd sh«w.sflM?e,in<»ticedatsd. Z4''?9U>^t>y whtcb the respondent No.2 (:<>ll^d <ipon this petitjflirMsr to sh^i»cfluse by 16.4.2010 wos dispatiehed by thc r<;spondt!nt No,4 on 13.4.20t0. If that notjce wffuld have! been resfiisjivsd t>y; the petitipner on 8.4.2010, she would have got.eight days time and even on thenext day i.e. on 9.4.2010, a.week'stjin^.But the letter was endorsed on 13.4.2010 meaningther»byth^re was a margjn of only two days to submit the r^plydnd that could not be submitted and due fo which <in ^x-parte ord<er of Annexure P-1 dated 20.4.2010 was passed. 6. Therefore, we think it proper that the petitioner shouW have been given reasonable opportunity to submit her reply to the show-cause notice dated 7.4.2010 and therefore, in our opinion .a post decisjonal hearing would be appropriate. 7, Accordingly, we dispose of the instant writ petition wjth the direction that the respondent No.3 herein shall provide a post decisional hearing to the petitioner. The p«stitioner miay submit her reply withjn two weeks from today and therenfter a decision shall be taken by the authority concerned. With a view to take a fresh decision, till then the. decisiein taken vide impugned order d<;ited.?0,4,2-0-t'0;;(A»nexure P-1) shall remain in abeyance. 8. Certified copy as perj'yles. ———— Sdf- I.M.Quddusl Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Roshan/- l8i !iB illl ss. • iSSi iSiS KSss ESS ^^£M jl M •tWS ^s^ la S3S ij^s^ia• :3^^• i3S •a fc_i.- ——..—• ;a