cm (1-) WSiS BE111 i^ y^E ra_THB_HIffl, GOUET _ OF_JUDIGAIUBE_A'r_B£LASPUR_lCHB|^£Sg^Hl •^^'x '^•f^'"''"..-°''" wx<£ PBir^IO1! No. M^^-_OP 2005 I,.* iA<" A6' ^> V ^- PEriTlONIE: ^' Vinod Hishra,son of E.N.Mishra, aged about 32 ye%rs, residdnt; of Milan chowk, Jashpurnagar,dist. Jasnpurnagar (C.G). Vs- EBSPPNSBNTS: o^ G c^ 1. State of Gnnattisgarh; •bhroagh; Seeretary, P.W.D. Department, D.K .Bhawah ,Baipzn* (C. G) . 2. Gollec-fcor,Jashpurnagar(C.G) 3. 'Fahsildar,Jashpurnaga r(C.G) 4.Executlve Engineer ^a-fcional^ Higaways, P.W.D. Depar-fcment; ,Baif>ur (C.G) WEI'E_PEII2IOg_mDBH_ARTIGLE, 226/227_0?'rHE_GONSIITUTIQN_OS'_INDIA XI-HC-22 sn^r^r R-fi+sn^r <t)*([°hFf?(T 3:5? '<<MIM<<, ISiTflu'IS, fsldltfy 311^1 M5fch *(1*IMI Shlich ••'•••••—••''•'••••J- ^- 20(15? f^% sn^Tg^nwgfN beirlg anti responde|its $-8-200' Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, couns^ Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Govt.| Heard both the counsel onl ~he petitioner has preferr4' the Constitution of India, (Annexure P-1), whereby the loss suffered by the respondents| not entering into the agreement] accepted to coltect the toll tax as a result of which the next bid was of Rs.1,82,10,356/4 was Rs.2,27,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the p|e not entitled to recover this not entered into contract and hisl that too without giving show conduct, and the proceedings Therefore, learned counsel for th< be aiiowed to make a the State/ respondents has no Having heard learned facts and cireumstances of the representation/explanation to re4| raising all his grievances and p^i the said representation within calise reoresentfetion obiection. coudse 'stlllttl'fl-l 114C]Tfffecfl'<R]«;K ^a.rf^HSii^T for ths petitioner. Advocate Tor Vne State/respondents. ladmission. r^d this writpetition under Article 226/227 of aggrieved by letter dated 21-7-2005 pejtitioner has been asked to make good the |to the tune of Rs.44,89,644/- on account of |after the highest bid of the petitioner was thereafter, failing to enter into the contract suffered a ioss of Rs.44,89,644/-, as the \, whereas the highest bid of the petitioner )|etitioner argued that the respondents were i|nt from the petitioner as the petitioner had earnest'money has already been forfeited, notice to the petitioner to explain his (lave been initiated against the petitioner. <e petitioner submits that the petitioner may i, to which, learned Govt. Advocate for for the parties and having regard to the <:ase, the petitioner is allowed to make his ipondent No.4 wlthin ten days from today, ints, in turn, respondent No.4 shall decide an^ither 30 days, in an objective manner after 4. jL-£lj^1if\•\r^ -\\ XI-HC-22 'sss •^wiciq, yrfl^'is, Rciiuy HIHMI 9h*11<»> 311^1 4^eh _.0:1P,^.-6.^ g^ 200$ R'd.A sn^rw R-fi<d3I^T shli<t)Bf?tT 311^1 ^ciiwflfsa' — 2.+ rais^d yn considering all the points representatlon of the petitioner is| any coercive method for realizatii With the aforesaid directidns, ths admission stage itself. Consequently, M.(W.)P.F stand disposed of. Parties are entitled for certjfied copy of this order. Soma 4iiifci41-i tii*irt)'ittec&<Ri«^i< ^aif^rq'an^T by the petitioner. However, till the decided, respondent No.4 should not take ofthesaid amount. i, the writ petition stands disposed of, at Nb.3066/2005 and I.A.No.6885/2005 also Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge / y/- 'yjs •