G^ l^2 BEEORE THE HON'BL HIG11 COURT QFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. ^^<?^ / 2011 ^ PETITIONER Santosh Kumar Verma, S/o Shri R.N. Verma , Aged About 32 years, R/o Ward No. 19, Behind Chhattisgarh School, Tikrapara, Mahasamund, C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ ^. A^/ 1. State of Chhgttisgarh Through the Secretary, Public Works Department Mantralaya; D.K.S. Bhawan , Raipur (C.G.) 2. Engineer In Chief, Public Vt/orks Department, Sirpur Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. ^... <\ ^.V,V , \ n/5 x S. Chief Engin^er, pGy.'<^'' "" 7^~ /^v .^"rf^ <^' ^•' Public Works Department, ' National Highway Gircle, Raipur, C.G.. ^. Executive Engineer, ^ Public Works Department, National Highway Divisjon No. 1, Raipur, C.G.. c-"' ^ M/s Laxrhl Enterprises Throl.igli «- proprietor RamswamofJ Khandeiwal, Partner Shop No.3, C.G.H.B. Shopp'ititj Complex, Shaheed Bhagat Slngh Ward, Tatiband Raipur, C.G. 'Y •»>-.. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF eOIMSTITUTION OF INDIA L.i.ia^'i.'..^ ..F~t^~1.? l!T~iT" sa\V ;i°~t S-_ S i_.3 -?;. ~T!"~?"!?^ ^ . n h'f : . ?"' :!' ft *tT^! ]iT-» HSGH COUFiT OF CHHATTiSGARH : Bi-ASPUR \?t^7s^T ?3s:TiTir'sM /r'1'. Mir't ^$in,£S -^c •"^^-s-i vyr\; ? r"^ i s i i^;^ ^^.f i'M'ih/. ^s^uo s^r ^,u a PETiTiGN£R RESPONDENT Santosh Kumar Venria v'ersus State of Chhattisgarh & OShers P?^<5Ani i l (Wrst Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, J. Shri S.imSiaz Aii, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Dy. Advocate Generai forthe State. ^B^.r^?u^^t Tha SRDER (ORAU (Passsd on this 26'" day of August, 2011) petitioner, wlthout approaching ihe' concerned authority i.e. Exscutlvs Engineer, is seeking redressal of his gnevance to the effect that Mls. Laxmi Enterprises, w'nich is operanng the to!l bridge and coilecting toil tax at Shakti Cana! bridge, have been charaina Rs.500/- more than the prescribed toil tax l.e. Rs.15/-. The petitioner submits that a coov of t'ne comDtaint made to the Chief Minister was sent to the concerned Executive Engineer, no action has been taken TiU OSiS. The issue cannot be decided at this stage by the High Court, as it invoives a'isputed question of facts, however, if the petitioner makes a complain; to tha concerned Executive Enaineer/ respondent No.4, he is directed to decide the same in accordance with law and take appropriate action against the concerned persons, if it is found that mora smount have been charaed bv tha concerned oartv. in view of the above, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing sur/ives for adjudlcation in this matter. Accordingly, the v»ritpetition stands disposed of with the aforestated o&ssrvation sna asrection. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 36 1