IN THE HIGH COURT GFCHHAYTESGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C)NO. TT’ 6% OF 2011 /, : M/S KAILASH SHARMA THROUGH PROPRIETOR / SRI KAILASH SHARMA, PETITIONER ” S/O. LATE DULI CHAND SHARMA, W” ‘ a AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, vi ‘ RAIGARtuc.G.1 éW/v/$w pHIMARPUR CHOWK, « JINDAL ROAD, __ V/S .I- IRESPONDENTS : THE STATE OF CHHATI'ISGARH THROUGH 17'THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RAIPUR (CG); w, 2-‘ THE CHIEF ENGINEER BILASPUR REGION PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, BILA§PUR(CHGQ WRIT PETITION UMBER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR IS$UE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF‘CERTIORARV} MAINE‘3AMUS, ORDER OR ORDERS DIRECTION GR DIRECTION$ OR ' ‘ THE LIKE \‘ l- PARTICULARS OFTH PETITIONER I “, I. X ' \ E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR @ WRIT PETITION gC)No. 7168 of2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION SB: Hon’hle Shri Satish K. Agjhoyj, J. Present: Shri Shri Rahul Kishorem Bhaduri, Advocate Additional for the petitioner. Advocate General with Shri Amn Sao, Government Advocate for the State. Shri P.K.Janwade, Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Rajpur, present in person. 0 R D E R. (Passed on G9m day of December, 20 1 1) 1. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of Shri Shri P.K.Janwade, Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Raipur, on instructions, submits that the impugned order dated 28.09.2011 was passed not with an intention to disobey the order of this Court. There are certain words which appears to be od‘ending and as such, he may be permitted to withdraw the order dated 28.09201 1. In View of the above submission, the respondent No. 1 s permitted to do the needful, as aforestated. It is expected that the respondent No. 1, i.e. Engineer-in-Chief shall be eareful in future while preparing a note or making a communicatioii to‘any one. It is well settled that mere taking decision to go to the higher forum, may be Supreme Court, is not enough to suspend the proceedings of a case when there is an order passed by the High Court. None else except the superior conrt is competent to set aside or modify an order passed by any court. 3. In View ofthe above, the petition stands disposed of. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge i PETITIONER : M/s. VERSUS 8c Another. RESPONDENTS : The State of Chhafctisgarh