← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/1566/2018disposed off

Dinesh Khandelwal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2018-07-31Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1566 of 2018 Dinesh Khandelwal S/o Late Moolchand Khandelwal Aged About 46 Years Proprietor Khandelwal Offset, Medical Complex, Telipara Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director, Public Instructions Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indravati Bhawan New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Collector Janjgir Champa Collectorate Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

4. District Education Officer, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

5. Block Resource Centre Coordinator Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Block Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

6. Block Education Officer, Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent / State :

Mr. Ashish Surana, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 31/07/18 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has made supply of the stationary materials to the respondent No. 5 but till date payment has not been made despite the order of the State Government. 2.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3.

Since the dispute being a contractual dispute, it would not be expedient to entertain the writ petition. However, the petitioner would be at

liberty to make representation before the respondent No. 5 for redressal of his grievance which will be considered and decided by the respondent No. 5, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

4.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. It is for the authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation strictly in accordance with law. 5.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

SD/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka