faZ HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CbRAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI L.C.BHADOO, J. Writ Petition {PILINo‘ 4062 0f 2007 (Writ Petition under Article 226/22? of the Constitution of India) Present : Ms Sharmila Singhai, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent No.1. Shri Sanjay K Agrawai, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (1 5’“ February, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta,C.J. Learned counsel far the parties are heard. PETITIONERS 1. Praveen Agnihotri‘ son of Shri Agnihotri, aged about 41 resident of Dam Rajhara, Durg (Chhattisgarh) 2. Deepak Mittal, son of Shri Subhash Chandra Mittal, aged about years, resident of Dalli Rajhara, Versus District Durg (Chhattisgarh) RESPONDENTS 1 State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Ministry of Urban Administration and Development, DKS Bhawan, Raipur 2. Smt Purvi Verma, wife of Rajendra Verma, President, Municipal Corporation, Dalii Rajhara, District Durg 3 ‘ (Chhattisgarh) The Chief Municipai Officer, Municipal Council, Daili Rajhara, 2) The petitioners have med this writ petition styied as Pubiic interest Litigation (PIL) for the foilowing reliefs : “7.1 A writ in the nature of the mandamus may piease be issued commanding respondent Municipal Council to publish the notification inviting tender in those gazette approved by resolution Annexure P-1. 7.2 The State Government may please be directed to take appropriate action against the erring officials in the matter of excessive payment made to the contractors and recover the amount to safeguard against the loss of money to the Government Ex—chequer. 7‘3 A writ and I or an order in nature of writ of mandamus do issue commanding and directing the respondents for conducting proper enquiry regarding the allotment of tender and its payment by an independent agency in the public interest. 7‘4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble court may deem t'It in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.5 Cost of the petition may also be awarded." 3) For ascertaining correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition in regard to the alleged excess payment made to the contractors, a fact finding enquiry would be necessary. tn our opinion, such a fact finding enquiry can be better conducted by the Lokayukta, who, as an investigation wing, for the purpose. 4) ln our opinion, it wouid be appropriate for the petitioners, if so advised, to approach the Lokayukta in the matter. 5) With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed o 5dr “ Chief JU5t‘ce Judge Sd/— L.C. Bhadoo padma f. __ g H