IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER W. P. C. N0. % g^ OF 2010 : Shiv Narayan Chaubey S/o Shri B.L. ^,. Chaubey , aged about-41 years, R.H.E.O. o...---^Y?'-""' .. (Rural Horticulture Extension Officer) @\ \..'^"^^..'./'" .•••"' ^- ^Gi-' R/o village- Bandhi P.0. Bachharwar 3-AW Tahsil- Pendra Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). y VERSUS iSPONDENTS 1., State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Agriculture Department , D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director of Horticulture, Reena Apartment, 1st Floor , Panchpedi Naka, Dharatari Road, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Deputy Director of Horticulture, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur. 4. Collector, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Rainji Chaturvedi S/o not know-to the petitioner, aged about-45 years, Gardens Superintendent, Patgawan, Pendra, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) JIVRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE SQHSXITUTION OF INDIA ^ ss m HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WR1T PETITION (Ct N0. 885 OF 2010 Petitioner Shiv Narayan Chaubey Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & Another WRtT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri M. K.Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shrl A.S.Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General for the SSate. Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate for the respondent No.5. 2. 5. (Passed on 07th day of December, 2010) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- on account of the work done by him in construction of 50 Barmi Tanks. On the other hand, iearned counsel appearing for the State and respondent No.5 submits that the labour charges have already been disbursed. Thus, nothing remains to be done. Be that as it may, there is a complaint that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was demanded by one officer (respondent No.5). All the facts are disputed even otherwise no writ or direction can be issued to make payment of the work done by the petitioner, if any, without verifieation of the facts. Accordingiy, the Collector, Bilaspur, is directed to look into entire affairs and pass an appropriate order, in accordance with taw, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concemed. !n view of foregoing, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok