INTHE HteR COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATISGARH ATBILASPUR W. P.NO.~ '"OF 2002 -^ PEariTIONER Sudhakar Hatwar, Executive Engineer, Public Works Deptt. South Bastar Division, Dantewara (Chhatdsgarh) V E R'S U S RESPONDENTS ^ • ^ ^y /---'t.-';"v-tf-''"' .^s^ .O'^a^i ^^^" ^;..^ ^..^"" ^-" tUttu Stateof Chhattisgarh fhrough The Secretaiy, PubUc Works Dqiartment, Mantralaya, D K S Bhawan, Raipur (C.G) Engineer- in- Chief, Public Works Departinent, Raipur (CG) Superintending Engineer, PWD Circle, Jagdalpur District Bastar (Chhattisgarl^ 2. 3. WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2217 KEAD WFTH ARTICLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUnOK OF;amDIft:FiDR ISSUANCE OF WRtT IN NA'NJRE < S V^Xt^qSSSS. MANDAMUS PROHIBm&N MSD <y^E3R. SaSEKStSX WSQ'r OR WRTTS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. 5@IiE8E» QiR ORDERS: ^JW^Ji^^^^"'^l^gii^ XI-HC-22 '3^-'i<i<fld<l, snily'16, (sigi'yy ^•ef' sn^i^ir Pw* sn^i ?t»-Hl<4»-frifsfl ^ Sff^T l4?lch HWWI aiHI<«> Wt. 2002- Ict*<{tT" sn^i'swm ^ifw HiON'BLE SHRI K.H.N. KURAN6 L.C. B Heard Shri Manindra Shr and Shri ,4yaz Naved; 6ovt. Advocafre v^s-t'ava, counsel for the petitioner ;, for the State/respondents. The petitioner by this petit Constitution of India has cha!len| passed in Original Application NQ.S] State Administr'ative Tribunal, Rij rellef sought for by the petitiQi observing that since the ^petitioner the interim ordersuspension order We have h^eard learned learned ©ovt.Advocate appefaring counge Learned counsei appearing f( out any illegaiity or infirmity in was placed under suspension on lapses on t.4e par-t of the petition^ chl^ll<y(41'1 *fffi<tff ^ TslLdl <F»l<^R -^ SlStiq 311^1 ; r.T L»tJ J. lon fiied under Section 227 of the bed the order dated 07/06/2002 of 2002 by the Madhya Pradesh tipur Bench by which the interim ^er was rejected by the Tr'ibunal has already been suspended and by ^annot be stoyed. ffcr 1 appearing for the petitioner and the Stats. >r the petitioner is not able to point tjie impugned order. The petitioner [3/03/2002 in pursuance of some that he was no+ able to supervise —-L^ ^^^^^^^;p^^w^^^^^^^^^^J^S!^!(^l^ #ww"u»"s'-r XI-HC-22 ~^ 311^1 W K-USh 3!7^I Sti*iict) ^ff^^f- r~v, ^q •^BIRFf, '^S'H'Te, fawiuy 3nip?T 'q^R' ..-^£.:MD..f72^-_/' HWCTI afflKill 2002- sn^t^<iTWHte[ the work and get the things execjuted in time. Therefore, vre do not find anyiliegality or infirmity in t^ there is.no force in this petition. three months ho.ve. elapsed.jafter^ expected that the concerned proceedings and conclude the same^ tHie With this observation, thep^tition is dismissed Sd/- ChiefJustice cbMld^l'i ^ITO^ff ^ "fe^ <io)'^i< *3lPtIH3tI^[ , orderof the learned Tribunal and However, since more than one year suspension of the petitionec, it is aulfiority wiil expedite the disciplinary as eariy as !e. Sd/- LC.Bhadoo ~ judge