M/s A. K. S. Construction, Jagdalpur, firm M/s A. K. S v. StateofChhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Water Resource
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
the writ petition is disposed of with the
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
M/s A. K. S. Construction, Jagdalpur, firm M/s A. K. S. Through partner Jagdalpur Shri Pradeep" Construction Yadu, S/o Late^-Shri Ramlal Yadu, aged about 39 years, Resident of Near Jhankar Jagdalpur7 Talkies, P.S. Oagdalpur, Revenue District - Jagdalpur (Bastar) (Chhattisgarh) M/s Siraj Khan (Proprietor M/s Siraj Khan) S/o Mo. Mubin, 'aged about 39 years, Resident of Near ^Sub-JaiTGorakhpur Pendra, P.S. Pen^ra,' Revenue District - Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS
^^
StateofChhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralay, Raipur (C.G.) The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resource Department Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) The Superintendent Engineer, Indrawati Project Division, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur (Bastar) (Chhattisgarh) The Executive Engineer, T.D.P.P. Water Resource Department, Jagdalpur, District -Jagdalpur(Bastar)(C.G.) The Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resource Sub Division - II, Jagdalpur, District - Jagdalpur (Bastar) (Chhattisgafh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22? OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT, ORDERS OR DIRECTION. The above named petitioners most humblv and respectfully beos to submit as under: - ~ 'S f} ^' 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR D.B.:HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J & HON'BLE SHRI FtANGNATH CHANDRAKAR. J Writ Petition (C) No.747/2013 PETITIONERS M/s. A. K. Jagdalpur and another S. Construction, Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Avinash Kumar Mishra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Government Advocate for the State/ respondents. ORDER (20.6.2013) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J
Heard.
The petitioners are Civil Contractors. They were awarded certain construction work on the bank of Indrawati river.
3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that thought the work was completed much earlier and the "»a»anss»' bills were submitted to the concerned authorities of respondents, but final payment of the work already done by the petitioners, been made though many representations were filed. He makes a limited prayer that the petitioners may be permitted to file a fresh representation along with their existing claims before the authorities and the concerned authorities may be directed to dispose of their representations within the stipulated period granted by this Court.
The above limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioners, has not been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
Operative part
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the observations that, if so advised, the petitioners may file a fresh representation along with relevant documents before respondent No. 4, within a period of one month from today, and if such a representation is filed, respondent No. 4, in turn, shall dispose of the same or shall process and forward the same to the concerned authority of the State and a final decision by the concerned competent authority shall be taken within a period of four months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioners. ~s ^h.. y '^y,.. 1
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Writ Petition stands finally disposed of.
No order as to cost. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge \ s Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the writ petition is disposed of with the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.