M/S Sai Construction v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

IN THE HON'BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH

AT BILASPUR {W.P. (Cl No..............3.I:l.?»...../2014} M/s Sai Construction(Partnership firni) Head Office at Green Park Colony, Jarhabhata, BUaspiir, through its partner Atul ShuKla S/o Shri Sudama Prasad Shukla, Aged about 42 years R/o Green Park Colony, Jarahabhata, Police Station Civil Line, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) ^s^ ;^F PETITIONER v^ ..»-••

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary PubUc Works Department, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) The Engineer-in-Chief Public Works Department Raipur District Raipur, (C.G.) Shri D.K.Pradhan Presently working as Engineer-in-Chief Public Works Department Raipur District Raipur, (C.G.) Executive Engineer Public Works Department Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) '^ 2.

3.

4.

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE CERTIORARY. MANDAMUS. ORDER OR ORDERS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS OR LIKE <<

^ l^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR D.B.:

HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN SINHA. ACTING C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA. J WRIT PETITION (C) No. 342 of 2014 PETITIONER M/s. Sai Construction

Versus

RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others (WRITa'enTIOIN UNDERARTICLEZ^^iiF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance:

;

Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Advocate with Shri Rahul Jha, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri Prafull Bharaf, Additional A.G. for the State. Shri Shashank Thakur, (Squnsel for Respondent No.3.

ORDER

(8tl'bfJanuary,2015) PER NAVIN SINHA. Acting CJ.

We have heard Counsel for the Petitioner and the Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State.

2.

The Writ Petition was originally filed challenging the order dated 07.02.2014 of the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Depari:ment, Raipur, denying renewal of registration as a contractor which had expired in 2013.

^\

,'.

f ,,.

^ 3.

During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the registration has been renewed on 26.04.2014.

In view of the subsequent development, we are of the opinion that the writ application has become infructuous.

4.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed.

Sd/- Acting ChiefJustice Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Rekha <<