'^.^^i r® r- \<'" XSJTHE^HIOIICQBRT OFJCDICATUREJ;HHATTISSA^AT BILASPUR W.P. Ho. (^ 63 / 2005 PETITIQSER RESPOHDEafTS 97}^A^ ^^•y/^> rMy^' y'A''' ./ ^y'^ ^yy^- Bhola Shanker Baid, S/o Late Shri Ranieshwar Lal, Aged 50 years, R/o MIG-56, Tatiband, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through fhe Secretary, PubUc Works Departtaent, D..K.S, Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Superintending Englueer, Public Works Department (B/R) Circle, Raipur (CG). The Executive Eugmeer, Public Works Department, (B/R) Mahasamiuid Division, Mahasaniund (CG). 3) •'-':"';^'-;^,. ^sy^ '\-.^ < " L>'Y;6^ " • WSIT PETIT1QH_UNDBR ASTICLE 326/227 OF THE COKSTITCTION OF INDIA XI-HG—78 ^SET -41<41d'll, tStii<-l<l(D, [s|tniyll,< if^y^r *11*1^tTgaNi^i .& "^200 sii^i Tra^'C 3D^T W h-1M TTS'IT 3?T^T ^i+ijch ilS»i ®1 ^arar ^rt?g sii^r 29.03.2005 collection Shri P. Diwakar, Sr. Advocatet the petitioner. Shri P.S. Koshy, Dy.A.O., for Application for ui^ent hearinj Heard. Leamed counsel for the invited vide Annexure-P/1 for petitioner was the successful bidder| required to purchase the stamp vid^ stamp, an agreement was enter{ 31/3/2006. The letter dated 23/4y specifying the amount to be deposit^d It is submitted that the the staff was appointed and he did the bid was awarded to him. It is (Annexure-P/5) dated 5/3/2005 of the agreement on the ground thatj withdraw Toll Tax from "Surangi been recovered. It is contended that the contrary to law, It is further wa6 A" <^N[<l41t 'HTR^ff ^f T^1c3t <P3)^,!< ^rsTfim 3ii^i with Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate, for he respondents. is aBowed, peti|;ioner submitted that the tenders were of toll tax by the respondents. The He deposited the amount. He was also Annscure-P/3. After hc purchased the fid into for the period 1/4/W05 to '^/2005 (Annexure-P/4) was also issued petftioner riot made all arrangements and even participate in any other auction, since fijirther submitted that suddenly the order received by him regarding cancellation the Govemment has taken a dedsion to tfala Pool" as cost of bridge has already c^meeUation of agreement is ille^d and cont^nded that the petiUoner submitted the representation. (Annexure-P/7), whi4h has been rejected without hearing him 'S^ "41<4M^, ^Tll-H'Ka, fi<dl'!-l'j,< /o^ 3!i^?T^lftsTW tWT3ii^?a,iiN; M^ 'ht.. lia«BB gutnents ofjustjce vide Annexure-P/8. It is also con( even to say that no loss haa been ii^c Having considered the argul'nent! Court, for the present, ends the petitioner to make a detailed the copy of this petition with annej; document regarding the loss'sustAined within ten days and on such reFlreser authority shaB hear and decide th^ with law as earfy as possible posithjely receipt/production. With thc aforesaidiibservatiohs, Consequently, M.W.P. No.92-< ^ended that stamps were submitted and jcurred is notjustified. adyanced, in the opinion of this wffl be served if a direction is given to reijresentation to respondent no.l alongwith jtures and the copy (^this order an<2 the by hina or Such other documents reFJresentatipn being made, the competent same on its own merits in acoordance within four weeks frcan the date of its ^T^i?T-4h ifR^tf ^ fe^ ^f ^T aiRra wt?i i, this petition stands disposed of. /05 also stands dispoged of. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge