Gannon Dunkerley And Co. Ltd. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1235 of 2020

1. Gannon Dunkerley And Co. Ltd. Through Its Coo., Ravindra Kumar S/o Shri Shayam Singh, Aged About 51 Years, R/o 603, Plot B-17, Marvel Homes Apartment Sector 61, Noida, District- Gutam Bhudh Nagar, Up Office At B-228, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-1, New Delhi- 110020 ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh Road Development Corporation Limited (In Short Cgrdc), Sirpur Bhawan Campus, Behind Akashwani, Civil Lines, Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492001

3. Manager Finance Chhattisgarh, Road Development Corporation Limited (In Short Cgrdc), Sirpur Bhawan Campus, Behind Akashwani, Civil Lines, Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492001

4. Team Leader Project Management Consultant (In Short Pmc), Highway Engineering Consultant Kawardha, District- Kawardha, Chhattisgarh

5. Director General Of Police Raipur, Chhattisgarh

6. Superintendent Of Police District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Sourabh Sharma Adv.

For State/Respondent 1, 5 &6 :

Mr. Vikram Sharma, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 17/06/2020

1. The Counsel for the petitioner after arguing for some time, prays for an appropriate direction to the respondent no. 2 to take an appropriate decision on the representation Annexure P/8 which the petitioner has filed and which is pending consideration for quite some time.

2. Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1, 5 & 6 submits that State in the present case is only a formal party, an effective decision in this regard has to be taken by the respondent no. 2 and 3.

3. Given the said submission made by the Counsel for the respondent, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition itself can be disposed of directing the respondent no. 2 to take a decision on the representation that the petitioner has made, on its own merits at the

earliest in accordance with law. It goes without saying that the respondent shall decide the representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The petitioner would also be at liberty to further supplement his representation that he has made to the respondent no. 2 by way of an additional representation or by supplementing further documents in support of their contention.

4. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Jyotijha