t. '/\ IN1HE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATHS&ARH AT BILASPUR c" Petitioner W.P.NO. l^ ^ I 2004 / .^ .;;, /.\^:'y s^^'. ^^^" !•' ^' Kfespondents /^° ^' Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. WRIT PETITtON UNDER AKHCLE Shri Lekh Ram Sahu S/o Shri' Bhikam Das Sahu, Aged about 36 years R/o Village Karaintara Tahsil Dongargaon, Dist : Rajnandgaon-IC.G.) State pf Chhattisgrh Through tbe Coilector, Dlirg Dist: Durg-(C.G-) Ttie Superintendent Engnieer, Public Works Departruent, Division Duig, Dist: Durg-IC.G.) The Executive Engineer PabUc Works Department (BSsR) Division Balod, Dist: Durg-(C.G.) Tbe Chief Medical 8s Health Of&cer, Durg. Dista-ict Hospital, Dist/. Durg-fC.G.) 27 OF THE CONSTtTUTION OF INDIA 'iv-^-^: -I- XI-HC-22 311^1'W R-li* an^t sb+lich iBlf^(T av. '\^' '3'sr'"i|l*ll?lit,^1gl'wti»Hfii?lii<ay SSf^T^'V^'y^'-^ ^.p'.tto. ^S^Pl'i-^Oii —•••••••'g^ 2(K) •<i*iwr aiw^ ftre-^r SII^TWtigT^lfeT 24..B-2004 coubsel Shri Aaup Mazunidar, Shii Bhaskar Pyasi, Paael| Heard on adiiussioii. The inam.grievaace offhe respondents -xragfe awarded construction worlc of Operation vfflage- Arjiuada and total cq] Rs. 9,99,000/-: Vide nottce d£ asked fhe petitioner to coinplete| nionths. The payment was to b| work executed by the petitioner; approval by the departinenta]| petitioner coinpleted tlie work to the tune ofRs,l,29,494/- work was completed and orde^ Divisional OfBcc'r, PubUc Wo^ instead of inakiag paynient to directed liiTn to stop the work. separate represeritation to the icplying the Fepresentation noT| petitioner. The petitioner'has Rs. 3,00,000/-. Leanied counsel for icspondents aie ueifher niajdu; t]|*l[il«I1l'qilRJf'^'fyattSRSR • ^aifigtT sfl^r . for the petitioner. (Lawyer for the State/ respoiidents. Ipetitioner in fhis petitiou. is fhat fhe contract to the petitioner for ITheater aud LabourDeliverv Unitat rt of the construetion work was |ted 8.4.2003 fhe Respondent No.3 |the whole work wifhia a period 6f 8 inade in iastallment basis on fhe Itiine to tiTrif after lueasuTem.ent and aufhorities. On 28.7.2003 fhe he subinitted thp biU for payinent even fhe iiieasureiueQt ofthe said was duly sauctioned by fhe Sub 1-ks Departiuent, i&uaderdehi^ but ihe petitioner fhe tcspondeiifs have |Thereafter the petitipner subnutted respoDdents but: neither they are aiiy ainount is being paid to fhe iucurred expenses to the tune of aj|ld aitd Uie petitioner subinits that fhe iitg payinents rior deciduig his ptif^a^ I XI-HC-22 sn^W. R;-fj.*3iiiSr ^lct) ^f^ t &: 'i\ ^ ''?' "T°g^iNf? ^•siffi'i<i; 'Riai*iy iitwn th*ii^ -^ ^n^T'.'qg'aB'' '''lv:!'';' '"• • (J?:^^,,..y.^^'fc^.-....--. "^FI. 200 Iq^g' an^r TOnwiite jLCpica>c±ila.l,ji.(ju.--tliddOl.^; •di:l6< respondeuts'to decide fhe Having heard learued resard to the facts and opiruon that certainly a writ p|i dispute of a GOQlTactual luatte^ make a detailed represental respondents should decide petitioner is not safisfied' lepresentatiQn fhen he shoul^ fhe law. Wifti the aboye finally. . In view of the above disposed of. rcpx^sentation. circilinstaaces tfae *Wt<'l<il-l ^li-lrtT4ft^ AtSK iT3ii:(iiT3n^!f . ,sl a. iliicuLiu.u AUfciy Ije issyed. i.0 fh.ie y (»unsel for fhe parties and haviag of fhe case, I am of the ititiou is not mauitaiaable being the (, however, the petitioner is allowed fo (ion to' ftie respondents aud the said representation, and if the with fhe order; passed on ibe pursue the reinedy avaUable under observafion this petitioa staads disposed of c|rdGr M(W)P No. 1739/2004 stands Sd/- LC.Bhadoo Judge [TT^;ctPig^