•3^f 'aiPII^R, Bfll'M'ie, [6«'ll'M3< wmi ai*<i^> -W[ 200 311^1 V!V (l?(3l<t.B') ani^i^t (<-ii+ wTaii^namNT (wm ^ft^sii^i O.wicKil-t KWdf ^ frA Tf5R?R ^T 3tRFT < ^?I NVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. DHIRENDRA MIJSHRA & HON'BLE MR. R.N. CHAN&RAItAR. JJ W.P. (0 No.2925/2007 (Petition under Article 22^ of the Constitution of India) Petitioner M/s ^ala Construction, through its Proprie^or Shri Nalin 6ala, S/o Shri H.S. Gala, ag^d about 54 years, resident of MI6- 52, H.B.|Colony, Katanga, Jabalpur (MP) Vs Respondents 1. Stail D.K^ 2. The^ e of Chhattisgarh, through the Secr|etary, Water Resource Department, . Building, Raipur (C6) Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Project, Resources bepartment, Raipur Wattr (C6)| 3. The (Executive Engineer, E/M H.E.M.M. Divisfon, Rudri, District Dhamtari (C6) 4. M/s |Khem Sales Agencies, through its Proprfietor, D.K. Thakur, Plot No.152 Zone)- II, Maharan Pratap Nagar, Bhopal (MP) | at Branch Office "Sundar Nagar Satej Mahadev 6hat Road, Raipur (C6) 5. The ^uperintending Engineer, E/M Circle, Watejr Resource Department, Raipur (C6) 29.4.2009 Mrs. Renu Kochar, Advocafefor the petitioner. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Addl. ^Idvocate General for the State. 'AAr. P.K. Tulsiyaan, Advocatej for respondent No.4. •iira^fi^*T iRiRBi TO!iRW—FS/9s—1'/2008—1 •0°'00('' t-f'" an^I ^ilR'fi'sb TOT <w^<i ai^i<* 'ssi "41'iild^l, (9Tfl'y<is, [qMiyy W*1<S'11 <1>*11<B •WI, 200 ^iII^T ''raq? ('jcll3°"t'=f) SWItK uftd 31)^1 Heard. ^' The petitioner has substantial reliefs:- 1. That this Hon'ble Cour1| entire record relating this Hon'ble Court; 2. That this Hon'ble Cour1| writ in the nature of the respondents to alli contract which was 3. That this Hon'ble Cour-t the contract of thel 19.1.2007 passed by P-22. Interim order granted i<\ vacated by this Court vide order was directed to file contract do< order has not been complied with. In the meanwhile, it has bes after the contract was finalizec <(il<(id<il'< fllii'il 4 ftret <I»I«;K ^ stRpr an^ fil^d this petition for following may kindly be pleased to call the •o the tender for kind perusal of may kindly be pleased to issue a iT|andamus or direction commanding |w the petitioner to perform the propjosed by the competent authority; may kindly be pleased to quash respondent no.4 accepted on tfie respondent no.2 ANNEXURE favour of the petitioner was jated 14.1.2008 and the petitioner juments. However, the aforesaid |n stated by the respondents that in favour of respondent No.4, «re^T^5{lT^»IRRnWIRWr—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. T .,*'>"* ^ •^-., <MI^!(I 'sas ft-fi* W <tti^ it*^ '7SE[ -tiwid^, 0Ti1y<is, fayiyy ifl*wn a>*<«*t> ••Wl 200 sn^i'^s^ (.'^vf'^f') wnw^l^is^y ^r agreement was executed, work <ji had already completed 76% o\ pqyment to the contractor has al^ Learned counsel for the ret present contract work is at the 90% of contract work has been cc Taking into consideratior^ petition, respondent No.4 has alr| and completed about 90% of th| claimed by thepetitioner in the and the instant petition has bec( time. Accordingly, the petition infructuoLis- Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge T^ <t>)<lii'l41-< N14fifflft^ <Rl<SK ^ srRlH <nt^i rder was issued, respondent No.4 total contract work and 59% to been made. spondents further submits that at yerge of completion as more than ^mpleted. that during pendency of this ^ady proceeded with the contract agreemented work, the reliefs ^stant petition cannot be granted |me infructuous with the lapse of is dismissed as having become Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge wn.aiiiNtTgCTRnwHKm?—FS/95—i 1/2008—i,00,000.