ST''" HIOH <X»URTOP CHHATnSQARH. BILASPUR W.P. (81110.9690f 2007 PBTTITIONBRS Ram Prasad Ba&gre, ayad. about 55 years, son of Late Sugan Lal Bangre, occupation - service, Assistant Engincer (B/M) Sub Division P.H.E. Department, Dharampura, Near Sai Mandir, Jagdalpur, resident of Sr. M.I.G. 7, Housiag Board Coloay, Bodh^hat, Jagdalpur (C.G.) Versus laBSPONDBNTS 1 State of Chhattis^urh, fhrough - fhe Sccretary, Departtaent of PubUc Hcalth Er^meerixi^, Dau Kalyan Smgh Bhawan, Ralpur 2 Supermtendmg Exigiaeer, (V/Y^ Maadal P.H.E. Department, Raipur (C.G.) 3 Executivc Eiigineer (Vi/Ya^ Sub Block, Maadal, P.H.B. Department, Js^dalpur, Distdct Bastar (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETmOK UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OF THB coNsrn'UTioN oc MDIA Appearance: Shri Prashant Jaiswal, Seiiior Advocate with Shri. Vaay Paadey, Couasel for ffae pettttoner. Shri Yashwant Singh, Govenuaent Advocatc for the State. ORAL OKDER (20.09.2007) sumfc KUMAR SINHA, j. Heard fiaally with the consent ofthe parties. Leamed Sciiior coitnsel for fhe petitioner subnaits that by memo dated 23.1.2007 (Annexure P/9) issued by the Bxccutive Engmeer, PubUc Healfh. Engineering Department, Je^dalpur, it has been proposed to recover a sum of Rs.64,140/- fi-om fhe petitioner. Hls submission is that in fact, ttds amouat is not recoveiable ^aiast fhe petitioiiiuq, because, earlier to ttus, an enquiry was conducted and it was held in fhe enquiry that tifcte petitioner is not responsible to pay fhls aiaount. He refers to Annexure P/5 dated 25.11.2003. He subBaits that wheu the aforesaid memo was received by the petitioaer, he ffled a detaUed rcpreseutation dated 29.1.2007 (Aanexure P/11), but no decision has been taken on the said representatton mid the same is pendingbefore the concemed authorite^.— -^~ ' ^ W.P. (8) »o.969 ofaOOT s For fhe time being, lcamed Sr. Coimsei for fhe pelltioner makes a lumted piayer that this petition may be disposed of wifh a direction to fhe concemed aufhority to decidc Ihe representation ffled by the petitioner on 29/1/2007 in repty to the recovery memo issued on. 23/1/2007. Thls limited praycr made by tearued coutrael for (he petitioner is not opposed by leamcd counsel for the State. Accoidingly, the same is allowed. It is observed aad directed fhat the if (he represaitatton dated 29,1.2007 (Anncxure P/11) is not dlsposed ofso far, fhc same shall be disposed of by the conceraed auttiority as earty as possibte preferabty wlthin a period of3 months fi-om the date of fillng of fhe certiSed copy of t'his order and a copy of fhe Writ Petttlon before the conceraed authorily and fhe decisfoa taken by thexa shatl be coxiunuuicated to fhe petitioner. However, it shaU be up to the petitipner to vislt this Court once again, if any gnevance is teft regaTdiag the aforesaid decision taken by fhe concemed autfiortty. WIth the aforesaid obscrvatioas, fhe petition staads finally disposed of. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge