C/éirawé)¢ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (c.G.) WRIT PETITION © NO. 3532 /201O / 2. Collector, Durg (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Vikas Abhikaran, Vikas Bhavan, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Executive Engineer / Member Secretary, Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yogna, (Project implementation Unit) Kawardha (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PETITIONER /: GKC PROJECTS LIMITED (Formerly Gokulkrishna Constructions Private Limited» Through its Legal attorney Holder, D. Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about 33 Years, S/o Shri Rami Reddy, Working as Business Development officer, O\a9 Regd. Office : 49 0V” QC?4W \t. 503, Prashanthiram Towers, Beside Saradhi Studios, Yeilareddyguda — /% gv \..or . Hyderabad (A.P.) Presently holding office at: Muskan AD Residency, Bunglow No. 16, Behind ;Q;Wd: §$~4¢¢~ MMI Hospital, Lalpur, Raipur (C.G.) §$ VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhatiisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Panchayat & ’ Rural Development Department, D. K. S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) w.P(C). No. 3532 of 20m PETITIONER GKC PROJECTS LIMITED Vs. RESPONDENISI State of Chhattlsgarh and others WRII' PETITION UND£B ARTICLE 2z§ 9f THE CONSTITW'IQN 9f INPM W If APPEAMNQE Mr. Yogesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. VinayHarit, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Suryakant Mishra, for the State/ respondents on advance copy. ORAL JUDGMENT 16.07.2010 I-M~ QUDDUSI. J 1. Heard finally with the consent of counsel for both the. parties. 2. By thls wrlt petltlon, the petitioner prays for a direction commanding respondent no.3 to decide the represenutlon dated 03.03.2010 withln a stlpulated time. 3. An agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent no.3 for the construction and maintenance of rural road under Pradhan Mantrl Gram Sadak Yojna for the year 2006-2007. According to the contract agreement, the work was to be completed within 12 months that ls on or before 22.04.2007 but it could not be completed for the reasons enumerated in the writ petition. Clause 27 of the .Agreement deals with time. It appears that petitioner has moved a representation dated 03.03.2010 for extension of time without penalty as per agreement Clause 27. addressed to the Executive Engineer, PMGSY (Project Implementation Unit) Kawardha (C.G). r 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has ‘submltted that the said representation ls tiii pending and it has not been disposed of so far. 5. Considering the facts, and circumstances and without going into the merits of the case, one way or the other we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondent no.3 to dispose of the representation. of the petitioner and if he feels that he is not capabie of deciding the said representation, he shaii forward the same for disposal to the competent authority. The said representation shall decided: as early as possible preferably within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy ’of this order. 6. With the above observation/direction, this writ petition stands finally disposed of at the motion stage. L/ l i. g .... .i I/ ‘ i Sd/— ,L/I/l sai— I.M.Quddusi Agarwa‘H" NJC. lodge '. , A// Judge