s IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT &LASPUR CHHATTISGARH M.C.C. N0. / 2006 (Arising out ofthe W.P. No. 886/2006) APPLICANTS RESPQNDENTS \w^ .w' w<^ ,w -<^' <^/ 1?' 1. State of Chhattisgarh ^ Through Secretary, F'ublic Works Department, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhatdsgarh). 2. Under Secretary, Public Works / Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3-^Engineer-in-Chief, • Public Works ;, Govt.;of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 4. Superintending Engirieer, Public Works Department, Durg Circle, Durg, District: Durg (Chhattisgarh) ,5. Executive Engineer (B&R), Public Works Department, Khairagarh Division, Khairagarh, District: Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS M.D. Sonkevare, S/o Shri P.D. Sonkevare, Aged about 33 years, Assistant Engineer (Suspended), Office of the Supertntending Engineer, Public Works Department, Durg, Tahsil 8s District: Durg (Chhattisgarh) APPLICATION FOR E5?TENSIQN_OETIME POR DECIDING REPRESENTATION NON-APPLICANT &ETITIONER 3aiH@-22- <..^-. 3^SD^si'^ra?)^' w< "y^w-^ "]S5S] '^ 1'Rpn-? ^^yfyswfi ^^^" TTr^7''?' ?l,MS|<!h sn^iTW R-ii<<>3fii^'i ^y^- n^ifg. ^ *ITH<ti ih'-nft ^^lt&lte, ftre^ 'fStSTSfsti?y7!?SK 'SfiWW. T^?TF£W»1T-'?T 200 ?f ""°—-— —y;— afl^iit ^WIWflte ! CorrLPet.NS. 108/061 MCC Ne. 301/061 10-7-2006 ! Shri Sanjay K| Agrowi^l, counse! for the ^etitioners/ respondents. Shri Prashant ^ishra, Rddl. Advocate fieneral for tiie State/espplicant. | Heard. 1 This common orjer shatl !• 108/2006, 109/2006 j& 110/ 302/2006 & 303/2006.! It is poiritedout frtictt whili jdispose of Contempt Pe|t'ition Nos. ^006 ond M.C.C. Nos}301/2006, the petitioners/respon|Jents, tf| Chhattisgar'h and the ^uthoritie^ the representation of |+ie peti1{ frpm the date of prodtiction of pointed out that in comptidnce of petitioners submitted their rep^ auttiorities, but thesam^ have no| herein on 1+ie ground tHat due t l" ^;<yRl<-i3n^T 109/06 & 110/06 and 3Q2/Q6 & 303/06 i^y^^iF^ 'Bl«t< ^ disposing of writ petitions fiied by iis Court- directed the! State ef t • • concerned to consider faind decide ( . . loner within a period offsix weeks i'- ' the representation. It is further ? the order passed by this Court, the j^sentations before the jconcerned i t- been decided tiii date. 1 It is pointed out that the State has also filedi AACG for j'.,'-'.:|" ""~'."/""/71'",,' extension of tinie in deciding tl"|e representation of the petitioner bona fide reasons, the Same could ^y iC-22 ^yft-swRK-a^'LKS"'*"? ^\"^ma'y^ -es^gw'fi' 13:sa"«3i<(RiS^Mt)wiwJ i%^^< <ii.i*!.at.»au<B.. /i3n^w^T' %ti<t)»iiS<i iSfr*lI(»>«^0 &:>wri/H SII^I^WIWiBfitT IS representation not be decide:!~wi1+>in isnpmala'fide. , ..Tlie.representation l+ieeri^efjusticetime Let 1+ie duthority within four tiie copy of this order. In that view of 109/2006 & 110/2006 303/2006 stand disppsed Copy of this orc|f 108/2006, 109/2006 302/2006&303/2D06. •c • c . the stipuld weeks frorri th? Riqaw SE^......2 ».^,.. Rre^ -7- ought grante •l-o hwe been decided. H^wever, in n •ri<i(fi<l1l •(ifCTT^toA ^SB^ran^ff K •ed period. It is stated that ihere w be decidect by the dompetent the date of receipt/production of mattert Contempt Petitipn Nos. 1D8/2006, and M^.C. Nos.301/2006, 303/2006 & of at fh^is stage. er • be jslaced in Contempt Petifion Nos. 110/^006 ond M.C.C. Nos.301/2006, '.' tx.- Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge of^el<