Subhash Jha v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 2842 of 2017 Subhash Jha S/o Shri Indradev Jha, Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 20, Purani Sharab Bhatti Road, Danteshwari Ward, Azad Chwok, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Engineer In Chief, Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development, Authority, Civil Line, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority, Civil Line, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4. Collector, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

5. Superintending Engineer, Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority, Project Division - 02, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

6. Executive Engineer - Cum - Member Secretary, District Project Execution Unit, Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents ___________________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Shri Kishore Bhaduri and Shri R.K. Jha, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Shri Prafull N. Bharat, Additional Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge.

Order on Board Per Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice 23/11/2017 1.

We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General.

2.

The Petitioner was awarded a work for construction of a road which is around 8 Kms. in length in the district of Kondagaon. His complaint is that his work was

interrupted by interference of extremist anti-social elements. On the strength of the statement by the District Collector, he pleads that directions may be issued enabling him to complete the work.

3.

The learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, opposes the writ petition pleading that the Petitioner has not demonstrated his inclination to complete the work.

4.

We may notice the controversy between the Petitioner and the Officials of the State is as to what is the extent to which the Petitioner has done the work. In the fitness of things, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this would be a proper case where the Government, at the level of the Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, looks into the complaint of the Petitioner and issues appropriate direction, if any, that may be found just and proper.

5.

For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition ordered directing that the Petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing by 1st Respondent and a decision be taken on Annexure-P/18, which is shown to have been addressed on 19.9.2017. Let this be done within an outer limit of 45 days from the date of receipt and/or production of certified copy of this order.

6.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/- Sd/- (Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) (Sharad Kumar Gupta) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Anu