vx w» Ci^ c^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURfC.G.) W.P.NO. 7'2- /2002 PETITIONER ^ RESPONDENTS •<^ <'- ^^'- ^""!>^'^--'' **'" - ^'lhl" n/-^** . •••"".'^''\.^''" ^yy G.P. Tiwari, S,/o. Iiidrabhan Prasad Tiwari, Aged 36 years, Occupation Coatractor, R/o.Madhu Pilley Chowk, Shantinagar, Raipur (C.G.) Vs. . >^StateofChhattisgarh, Througl] Secretary, Department ofPublic Works, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) (^••''^*1 ^'^ 2. 3. ^".o ^ 'nb ChiefEngineer, Public Works Department, Raipur (C.G.) Executive Engineer, PiibJic Works Department, Raipur Division No. 1(B/R) Raipur (C.G.) ,\t)'LPE®fflONUNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT INTERIM RELTEF •. THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. ORDER OR ORDERS '~^7s '^i T?TrTiS? ^T '3:??^?i ^^l^ »»'«» '3^ '^!4!^;ro, 's??fT<'FT(S, TSWiugT w:.f).'AC..;..l^].~is?..: 's^X^T '^^ {''^T^6^'^ Wiwir'T TWCT "? •fer»t^RZR WRT -^a, s^ Writ Petition No. J71/2002, 72/ 2002 aild 73/2002 14-01-2002. j Shri Maniadra Shri\|astava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Deep Kesbarwsfii, Paael Laivyer for th.e State. Heard. Tbis Order shall dibpose of W.P.Nos. 71/2002, 72/2002 Emd 73/2002. j These petitioris have been filed on. the grouiid that at the time of formation of ne^v State of Chliatdsgarh, the petitionei-s, pursuaut to notice of fhje Gtovemment mviting tenders, submitted tenders which were acce^ted aad fhereafter petitioners siiccessfully completed the work &id frLlfilled aU the conditions and terms, but the payments have not bee^i made so far. By fhese petitions, fhe petitioners have prayed for tlie directions to fhe respondent to pay / release forthwifh balance; aforesaid amount at pen; Leamed counsel fc aniount and furfher to pay interest on the rateof25%. jr the petitioners submitted fhat th.ere is no coxirpliant against the vroris executed by the petitioncrs. In spite of ^' ^•c^T^^ S^TG'^F ^^TN? 1 ^^^^f ^•" 'QTff?(T eR-<5T9s B^ t:?TIZTRTrf, ^'^fT^FT^', TSTc;Tl^r<T7( ^t.^c.^-'jf-w^ V% 20C *\ \ R^T 1T33T (';j^I;p^T) r'aTW: ^ft?; 3!TS'?I 'a:1"f?WF3T'Wraf 4 fe^ •ri^ZTC •^affiwaiT^f been raade to theia. It is fh.at payraents of lakhs of irupees liave not further subinitted fhat thej petitioners inade * but wifhout any reason, tye araouxit has iiot been paid to fhein. It is 1 also subinitted fhat whfcnever conipetent aufhority, the^ assuied that proper orders would be 1 but no order has b4en passed. Havin.g considered 1jhe facts and circuiastances of the case, raaterial on record aad hqiviug heard leamed counsel for fhe parties and wifhout entering iato tjhe inerits of fhe case, in. the opinion of this Court, it would be just pnd piuper fhat fhe petitioners to fQe a detaUed representation alpng with copy of fhe petition before the respondent No.2/ Chaef Engineer aucl if such a representation is inade, fhe respondent No.^ shaU. consider and decide it iu accordaiice wifh law as early as possi^le, preferably withia two nionths fi-ora. the i! date of production of rep^-esentation. On examination, if it is found E fhat the petitioners are entifled to receipt of such payinent, aecessaiy action be taken, as has already been observed by this Court in W.P. 1 No. 2173/2001. | ^ 'oo M fr. ^f I! ^] r^l o; ^- ^l •f"6 ^,-./ 4^g % N's