•^KKV:'%';S>;»a.i:S: WTHE BIGH COURT OE JUDICATUKE AT BHASPURTC.G.l W.P.NO. "7f /2002 PETITIONER Vinod Kumar Pandey, S/o.ShriR.P.Paudey, Aged 31 years, Occupadon Confractor, R/o.C/ll.BajaiColony Sector-1, New Rajend'ra Nagar. Raipur (C.G.) .Vs. RESPONDENTS ..^•^. ^t^-"2 .••"'. ..•*•'/\^.^ .•-•y^y ^'^s~^ J^^* •• ^ ...•••'' 3. l.y-^State ofChhattisgarh, Tbroiigb Secretary, Departmeat ofPublic Works, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) ChiefEngineer, Public Works Department, Raipur (C.G.) Executive Engineer, PubJJc WorksDepartsaest, Raipur Division No. 1(B/R) Raipur (C.G.) PETITION UTMDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DSIDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT INTERIM RELIEF : THE NA.TURE OF MANDAMUS AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE DIRECTION OR DIRECTfONS. ORDER OR ORDERS imgiiiiT I'B-1-' XI-IB;—78 sfxz^wnv ??ar 3:~EF?i %sm; 5^ '•^i<4!fra, ^"grarrs, fq^rray ^-....'^..f.'...''..0'...^ ~LWIL— ^iPteqt-i -va^t if fyst Tf^RSR Writ Petition No. j71/2002, 727 2002 and 73/2002 14-01-2002. Shri Maain.dra Shri^astava, Advocate for fhe ps 1 Shri Deep KeshanvEJni Paiiel Lawyer for the State. This Order shaB di^pose ofW.P.Nos. 71/2002, 72/2002 and 73/2002. . | i These petitio4.s have been filed on tlie ground fhat at fhe time of foruiation of n^w State of Chhattisgarh, the petitioners, pursuant to notice of fi^e Goveminent invitmg tenders, subinitted tenders which were accepted'" and thereafter petitioners successfuUy coinpleted fhe work aad falfiUed aU. the conditions and terDis, but the 1 payinents have not befen niade so far. By fhese petitions, flie petitioners have prayed fcr the directions to the respondent to pay / release forthwith balaiict amount and furfher to pay interest on fhe aforesaid ainount at penal rate of 25%. Leamed couiisel fpr the petitioners subinitted fhat ttiere is no coiupliant ^ainst fhe -^ork executed by the petitioners. In spite of f^ ri-OTS -.- r-.^ •^r^,"' %^!c?; l'Li"rici, 8Ti]'l-"is, i<!:!Mi~lL|,< *<R?1i ttNiqi -/ -n^=!T?4'l"?-?TC^E?-'?' \ (Tpr3"f?iT) fhat paynients of lalchs |of rupees have not been m.ade to tbeBi. It is ftirfher subinitted that pie petitioners niade several representations, 1 but wifhout aay reasonj the amount has not been pald to fhem.. It is also subinitted fhat i¥henever fhe petitioners approached the coinpetent aufhority, tjiey assiu-ed tiiat passed but no order ha^ been passed. proper orders would be Having considereijl fhe facts aad circuinstances of fhe case, 1 m.aterial on record and ghaving heard leamed couiisel for fhe parties aad without entermg iatJD fhe inerits offhe case, ia. the opinion ofthis Court, it would be ju^t aad proper fhat the petitioners to file a detailcd representation along with copy of the petition before fhe respondent No.2/ Chiep Engineer and if such a re-presentation is i made, fhe respondent N|i,2 shaU consider and decide it in accordaiice witli law as early as po.ds'ble, preferably ivithiti tavo inonths froin the date of production of ijepresentation. On examiuation, if it is foLind that fhe pe'dtioners are (?ntifled to receipt of such payiaent, necessaiy action be taken, as has No.2173/2001. ah-eady been observed by fhis Court in W.P. ^ % •'•3s- F^! ^rw^' 1 v •' NiNWS ai&Siq? -s-S] -4j|^!<»TZT, ©Tfl^Tns',fsj^Tray ^•y - ^Ua- 1 200 ^I^i ^"^? ( QII ^-(i-.,^] 'W'lKT'm MTq-af -^ rgvf 'ffSi-t^TC •gr sif?t! W^i It is made clear fhfrt non-compliaiice of fhis order shaU be viewed seriously. Wifh the obsen/atiobs made hereiaabove, tliese petitions are disposed of at fhis stage. j Certt&ed photocopy,iifapplied for. -.-£"... Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge Y''-iI^L 3°llI-V — ^'