'..'•E«» /f"^ ^- ^ ^ ivl: Dr' AK Dubey, S/o Late DD Dubey, Aged about 47 years, Reader Civil Engtneering, GEC, Raipur, R/o B-13, Gayatri Nagar, Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Throuah Secretary To Government, lantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipui The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, NH & Bridge Zone, near OCM Chowk, Raipur (CG) KK Shrivastava, Aged about 60 years, Chief Engineer PWD Pension Wada, Raipur (CG) rarae Chief :ngineer, Public VVorks Department, NH & Bridge Zone, near OCM Chowk, Raipur (CG) Mnt Appeai under Section 2(11 ofChhattisaarh Hiah.Coyrt tO UiVISfi ,i- A.^-iA ^Afi^ Present: Shri Rakesh Shrouti, counse! forthe appellai Shri VVS Murthy, Deputy AG for the State / respondents No.1 & 2. >th 'he foilowina iudament of the Court was oassed bv Learned counsel forthe parties ars heard on admission. L 2} Appesiant Dr AK Dubey has filed this writ appeal against ^ned order dated 24.03.2009, passed in WP(C) 3) The appellant/petitioner filsd the writ petition for the ina reliefs: "a) The Hon'ble Court may kindly pieased to summon the respondents and be directed through appropriate to place the complete record before th< Hon'ble Court. b) The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and quash the impugned orders dated 12.5.2008, 3.10.2008 and 15.10.2008 marked as ANF^EXURE P-1 c) The Hon'ble court may kind declare that the petltioner is compe entitled to do the proof checking of drawings when ever entrusted to or colleaes. !y be pieased to :ent, qualify and thedesians and Cost of this petition and any other as the HonoraUe Court fit in the circumstaRces d) appropriate relief t II case.' 4) The petitioner thus, in substance, was seeking quashing of the orders/communicatlon 15 12.05.2008, 03.10,2008 and 5.10.2008 (Annexure P/1 in the writ petition); a declaration that ths petitioner is competent, quaiified and entitied to do the proof checking of the designs and drawings whenever entrusted to his deDartment or coileae. 5) The learned Single Judge, on a thorough c-Qnsiderat'son of the submissions of learned counsei for the parties, found that as there was no binding agreement between the institution of petitioner and the State Government; the work of proof checl' v w was entrusted to ths petitioner's institution on payment of prescribed fee as per the executlve instructions of the State Government; the authQrities not satisfied with the services rendered by the petltioner have requested the Head of the institution not to get work of proof checking through the petitioner; in the absence of any statutory right much less any constitutional right to do the work of proof checking entrusted to the institution by the respondents/authorities, the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs, wh.ich he has claimed In this petition. 3) Learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed appellant's writ petition vide impugned order dated 24.03.2009. 7) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the reasonings given by the learned Singte Judge in the impugned order, we do not find any Infirmity in the impugned order which may warrant interference in this writ 8) The writ appeal, therefore,. is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustics Sd/- Sunil Kumar Smha Judge subbu