← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/1163/2016withdrawn

Smt. Laxmi v. Chhattisgarh Housing Board

2016-05-05Hon'Ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1163 of 2016

1. Smt. Laxmi W/o Late Shri K. Tangraj, Aged About 47 Years.

2. K. Vinod Kumar S/o Late Shri K. Tangraj, Aged About 27 Years.

3. Sundari Rao, D/o Late Shri K. Tangraj, Aged About 25 Years.

4. Savita Tangraj, D/o Late Shri K. Tangraj, Aged About 23 Years.

5. Nageshwari Naidu, D/o Late Shri K. Tangraj, Aged About 21 Years. All are the R/o Shiv Mandir War No.12, Gidam, Dantewada, South Bastar, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh Housing Board Through Commissioner, Head Office Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattsigarh

2. Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Jagadalpur Division, District Jagadalpur Chhttisgarh

3. Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Sub Division Jagadalpur, District Jagadalpur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners.

:

Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondents.

:

Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker Order On Board 05/05/2016 1.

The petitioners are legal representatives of Late Shri K. Tangraj who was A-5 Class Civil Contractor with the Chhattisgarh Housing Board. As per pleading, late Shri K. Tangraj was awarded six contracts for carrying out the construction work, however, before he could complete the construction work, he expired on 02.08.2015.

2.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that despite repeated request

to the authorities, the claim of Late Shri K. Tangraj has not been settled and Housing Board is not giving his dues for the work carried out by him.

3.

Counsel appearing for respondents submits that let the petitioners file a fresh representation to the respondent No.2 and in turn appropriate order would be passed on their representation.

4.

At this stage, counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition with the aforesaid liberty. He, however, submits that respondent No.2 may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioners within some time framed.

5.

The petitioners are permitted to withdraw the present petition with the aforesaid liberty. In the eventuality of filing representation to the respondent No.2 by the petitioners detailing their claim, it is expected from respondent No.2 to decide the same strictly in accordance with law.

6.

It is made clear that nothing has been observed on merit aspects of the case and the respondent No.2 would be at liberty to decide the representation of the petitioners strictly in accordance with the provisions of law.

Sd/- (Pritinker Diwaker) JUDGE Vijay