6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P.No.2-l^--°'/2006 Petitioner -..-•'t ...- ^^^ ip->'^v>"' ^ ..•'"7 ^•:' ;\f~V'''i ^..~:'\0>-' ,-^^y lAfespondents Niraj Sharma S/o Shri Surendra Kumar Sharma, Aged about 25 years, R/o At Post Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) Versus 1) ^^<y°^ h State of Chhattisgarh - Through the Secretary, Panchayat Avum Gramin Vikas Vibhag Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) Nagar Panchayat, Gharghoda through its Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Gharghoda, District- Raigarh (C.G.) >'.'-'^ / ,^, ft WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE ''"'^•^^ wi CONStlTUTION OF INPJA' 'rert7] XI-HC-22 3^?siPTI?PT, »Ti)«'i<o,fictiyy*, ..^.;f...^.0..2:l^q^6 ..r.-»'..^......-.....^ 200 /" irwii aiHiti sn^rq'iT 1^TH;3n^T »*<w(ii^ 3(i^<] g'KiiigTflfer <*i'i<if<''n-) t<i*(dTffrsl<i <R|«|< ^•sTi^irsti^r Shri P, Diwakar, Sr. Advocfe the petitioner. Ku. Dipali Pandey, Pane! Ls Shri Manish Sharma, couns|s Heard. On 16/03/20W respondet recovery of Environmentai Fee (t amount - Rs.20,000/- (Rupees tw4 Paryavaran Shiiik for 01/04/2006t stipulating various eondstions wa{ highest bid and that was accepte petitioner. Thsreafter, agreement and respondent No.2. The contra) cancellation and aiso for referrin!! Municipal Officer. Petitioner d< (Rupees Forty-five thousand only). by Chief Executive Officer, he w; Shu/*" from tst of April, 2CX)6. e with Shri P.K. Bhaduri. counsel for vyer for respondent No.l/State. for respondent No.2. a.2 issued auctjon noiice for >aryavaran Shuik) and fixed security nty thousand only). For coitection of to 31/03/2007, a separate document also issued. Petitioner save the d and contract was awarded to 8ie yas entered in bstween the pefitioner st also contajns the provjsions for its each and every disoute to Chief iposited tota) sum of Rs.45.000/-. Vide order dated 31/03/2008 issued |s authorized to recover "Paryavaran No.2 after ob' Revenue Inspector finding breach 07/04/20)6 cancelied the agreei petition for following reliefs: ^ming enquiry rsport from Assistant t>f tsrms of contract vide order dated ient. Feeling aggrieved, this (tftt^f^) XI-HC-22 3'^' -^WM^, e^'y'Ks, Riiaiyy 311^1 M51<sb IItCtl SBtlltI W^ 200 t^R% -2- sn^rw R-fi<*i sn^n' aiii'ti «fta •W^TWTORBlfl? a>*ii<ii qiiito'fli iwCTT¥te^<Rit<:i< ^•srt^iran^r 4. ^ s» "7.1. Thattheir (Annexure P/8) is Gharghoda be set fesuM order dated 07/04/2006 by the Nagar Panchayat asipe/quashed. respondetits 7.2. The petitioner to carry Shuik" (Environment^f respondenfs and be further directed performance ofttie be direcied io altow the the v/ork of "Pa?yaya?a/? Fee) tiii 31/03/2007. The iterty the Respondent No,2 it>ot to create any hurdte in of the petitioner. 7.3. That the re^pondents produce the sntire Court pertaining to th^ impugned order. be directed to record bsfore this Hon'bte aiiegations as leveied in the reiiey(s) 7.4. Any other petitfonsr, which thte and proper in the case." fa<tts may also be given to the 'bie court may deem fit and circumstances of the For breach ofcontract, dam^ges and injunction remedy by way of civil suit wss avaiiable and in acc<|>rdance with Order 39, Rute 2 of the C.P.C.,. temporary injunction coui<| have been ciaimed, even Order 39, Rule 3 of the C.P.C., ex parte ir|junction can be ciaimed. Petitionsr without taking recourse to ttie afor^said forum, has fited this petition. To say that pelitioner had oniy option to approach this Court for efficacious remedy, that does not appear to b^ sound. Petitioner has already other forum avaiiable for his remedy, eve^i for urgent and efficacious remedy. With the aforesaid obse^vation, ths petition is dismissed. However, petitioner, if advised, m^y take necessary steps to invoke ttie jurisdiction of Civil Court for his red •essal.-No costs /^ Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge (tltd^KEW^ .•^ Ct.