M/S Goyal Electricals v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4507 of 2021 • M/s Goyal Electricals Through Its Proprietor Shri Rishi Agarwal S/o Shri Kailash Agrawal Age 33 Years, R/o Indira Market, Balco Nagar Korba, Police Station Balco Nagar Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration, Raipur Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba Saket Bhawan, Tansen Chowk, Korba Dsitrict - Korba Chhattisgarh.

3. The Executive Engineer (Electricals) Municipal Corporation Korba Saket Bhawan, Tansen Chowk, Iti Korba District - Korba Chhattisgarh.

4. The Account Officer, Municipal Corporation, Korba Saket Bhawan, Tansen Chowk, Korba District - Korba Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate For State :

Mr. Ashish Tiwari, G.A.

For Respondents No. 2 to 4 :

Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board 11.11.2021

1. Heard.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner firm is a contractor for electrical installations and electrification etc. The respondents No. 2 to 4 granted a work order for external electrification at 293 Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana at Mudapar Korba. The petitioner has completed the electrification work of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana at Budapar, Ward No. 18, Darri and Ward No. 2 Gevraghat. The completion certificate has been issued by the Municipal Corporation Korba for the same. The petitioner has submitted the bills for payment to the respondents No. 2 to 4 but the same are pending so far therefore representation was made by the petitioner but the same has not been decided. Therefore, it is prayed that the

appropriate direction be issued.

3. Learned State counsel makes firmly objection.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that in case the representation has been filed by the petitioner, then the same shall be decided by the respondents and therefore, the case may be disposed off.

5. After considering on the submissions, this petition is disposed off at the motion stage. The respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation filed by the petitioner which is pending and take appropriate decision on the same within a time limit if 90 days from today.

Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Vishakha