I.` = _ _ ` _- * ) Serial Date -..-. --+----.. -` - ----- ----OrderwithSignature 7 /2:I Jf JE. _ -t_=`_.-_--_ _ ==J---=_`-==a-=iOfficeNoteasto No. of of action (if any) Order Order C.M.A.No.2 taken on Order 2?i> 03.08.20 -I--_--_-_ , - 5 Heard Mr. B. Sharma,learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. a. Pokhrel, ahd Ms. Binita Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. ur P. Wangdi, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. J.. a. Pradhan, learned Government Advocate and . Mr. Karma Thinlay, learned ;Assistant Government Advocate for the State - respondents. Upon hearing the learmed counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the signatories in the document marked Annexure P-5, that is, the admitted bill signed and checked by 4 members, namely, the Divisional Engine'er, the Superintending Engineer, the Assistant Engipeer (PQ) Engineering Cell, and the Assistant Engineer (Planningr 0-f t.her. Department of Education, Gbvemment of Sikkim,I ) Gangtok, Sikkim are necessqry parties, inasmuch as, these are_que 4 authorities who have signed the bill, who die very much aware about the existence of the bill pertaining to the extra labour charges for the high altitude to the tu ine of Rs.1,23,647.oo ( (Rupees .one lakh, twenty |'three thousand six4E+hundredandfortyseven)onl},and_they~should~b€r Jmpleaded-_as|5affy=i;on >-dentsin this case. Accordingly, they are impleaded as party respondent.i ( fiii= -.:` `J.: Order with Signature Office Note as to action (if any) taken on Order Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7. It may be mentioned that, onc the bill is admitted and undisputed between th contractor and the authorities, the authorities are t make payment and they cannot run awa.y from it in view of the related decisions of `pre Apex Court a well as the High Courts, particularly the Gauhat High Court rendered and reported in €'rfelq.r2001 Vbl I GLT 332, j~^ . 2000 Vol. 11 GLT log and AIR 2005 Gauhati page 92 so far and so forth. 13e that as i :e::£'cethoefnpoett±£::°:;ro:Sthreeq4u¥detdckr:s:toenpdse::: E= within three days from today, and the matter be listed` on 05.09.2005 for necessary orders. t Clrie Jhastice Sinoh ) `£.E:-::::,-!i::i=:+ Judge [iliiiiiii-_---` P.ck Bcor` ut €#at-#J-nd hoL2f L4Ajnd u`; £##£fy I. hetri' .,,, ^pJJ}J L+.L '+apul. `hb-. I, 1.+ I . A ir cnd Aul . i` g~uJope tuAchwulj nd. Back totbL.oL 4.drf. ^#bul,- r`', Ilie dr|urL hcrdt~-` . tws= 3. ittrydr, L..€ flue wiirat aly Ofll. J SquLJ ELdr .I: ---:-:::--:i-ii-:::--.---::.:iij ; LL|-Lb Jrty` ,ha #4~ftyoLfr##- Order with Signature Off ice Note as to action (if any) taken on Order 3. 5.09.2005 Heard Mr. 8. Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Miss Recta Sharma, lemed counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. P. Wangdi, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. J. 8. Pradhan and Mr. Karma Thinlay, 1eamed Government Advocates for the State - respondents. Mfrt!n hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties at some length, Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel in his usual frankness submitted that the petitioner desires to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum for arbitration in terms of the related work order. In our :::sS:::rbe]:ied¥'atchc:r::::;;,#:eel:¥etdh:np:tLftt;°d::rw: with liberty to the writ pet#oner to approach the appropriate forum for arbitration. \ Nfu:.a¥*=h' rfudae