1 ARi IN THE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. •S~^2^' / 2006 PETITIONER , ^^jse^^ ^$2^^y :Pheru Lodhi /' S/oHiraLodhi Aged about 56 years, R/o- village- Domardih, .^t_ P.0- Itaih, Tehsil/P.S- KUairagarh; Dist- Rajnandgoan (C.G) Versus RESPONDENTS •B ^•>' fr.' 1.0 State of Chhattisgarh^ Through the Secretary, Public Works Department, Maatralayay D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G) Engineer inChief-^' .' PWD, Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G) Superintendent Engineei> ; PWD, Durg Mandal . Dist- Durg Executive Engineer «^" PWD (B&R), Sub-Division Office, Khairagarh Dist-Rajnandgoan. (C.G) '' Sub-Divisional OfBcer ^ PWD (B&R), Sub-Division Office, Khairagarh (C.G) . .^" W.ftSWW^SSSS^SSSS'S^SS^i^^SSSSS 2 -® B;: WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22'6/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT ORDER OF DIRECTIQN TG DO FUSTICE IN THE MATTER. HI6H COURT OF CHHATnSSARH AT BILASPUR W. P. falNe. 5824 of 2006 Petitioner : Pheru Lodhi Versus Respondents ; State of Chhatt-isgarh & o-thers SB: Honlle Mr. Justice Satish K. Ayiihotri, J ^resent: Mr. H.S. Ahkiwalia, Advocate for the petit'ioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel kiwyer for -the resposndents/Slate. OR b E R (Passed on •this 29th Day of Januory, 2007) 1. Leamed counsel appeoiring for the petitioner as well as for the Sta-te/respondents jomtly submit that the facts of the present writ petition are similar to that of in W. P.No. 454/2005 (R<un Prosdd Yadav & others vs. Sta-te of Chhattisgarh & others), which was allowed vide order dated 4.1.2007. They further submit that the question of law involved is also the same. 2. In view of the above-stated submissions made by leomed counselfor the part'ies.'the writ petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 4.1.2007 passed by tiiis Court- in W. P. No. 454/2006 (Ram Prasad Yaddv A o-thers vs. State of Chhottisgarh & others). No order as to costs. Boblu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge