Disposed

Satyanarayan Sonar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC6 Dec 2013WP/2221/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Article 226/227 sought a writ direction for the respondents to conduct a review D.P.C. meeting within three months, pursuant to a Government letter dated 112.04.2010, which the respondent department had failed to implement.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to conduct the review D.P.C. meeting within three months from 06.12.2013. No order as to costs.

Satyanarayan Sonar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

?;31asl ^SifS 11

s'.^

w^J;li1

^.\°

B8»

IST THE HIGH CSQURT Og CHHA'EnSGARH AT BILASPUR K3.G.)

¶8

•WRrTPET N0. Z'Z'Z-I /2004

¶9

» : PETITIONER

¶10

w
Bfil
Bftl
vi^vy
1.
^^
!2.

¶11

Satyanarayan Sonar, aged about 60 years, son of Late Sudaina Prasad Sonar, Sub Engineer, Public Warlas Department (Buitding ^ and Roads), Mariendragarh, ?Dist. •^ 'K6i-ea,(e.Cr.),:',.:,. ?,.:.:,,: :i^

¶12

State QfChhattisgarh, .i-'i'ii.'hi;:. H'.:3.; ; ;thFC>Ughii;the^Chief:;iSeefgta@,!^{;;'^ Dau,;..Kalyan:;|'SingH|^|B|ia|cggE||jil|;':!|j lli 'ii:31 ".^l?a|^^,^tihafffsgarlj|||;||||;j

¶13

.The^Seeretarx.^Deparfmeia.tl.^f; P.W.0., DKS Bhaiwaii,: Rfiiiwu^(C7G.} .,::.. :;.::•;:. |-^

¶14

:'^'^

¶15

The Secretary, Deparfaieatli ®f General AdministratiOH, DK® Bbawan, Raipur(C&)

¶16

ftiiH-;?:i

¶17

. li ^!

¶18

I.Engineier-in-ehief, :,;:'-ft;tlj, . li ^! :of^,:^:.p.Wii3. ME 1& •(Building.i,Ana;tRoaa);,,ii©|KtS!.f ;BKavyan,;iRaijpur/ (C.w: , The'^'Sit.iipeiffiEiteiidinl;^ 3 •^s^s iWPubiiic^'Wiiflss'

¶19

(Building and Road), Ambikapur Division, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) The Executive Engineer, Department of Public Works (Building and Road), Korea (Chhattisgarh) M.P. Mishra, Assistant Erigkieer, Department of Public Works (Buildicig and Road), Janakpur, Korea Divn. Distt. Korea (CG) 8. R.B. Sahu, Assistant Erigineer, peF>artinent ; of Pyblic Works (Buildmg Si RQad), ] ManendragSrh,.j Korea Division, Ksrea (GG)

¶20

WRFT PETinON UNDERARTIGLES 226/227 OFJFHE CONSTrTUTIQN OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRTT OR WRBTS, ORDER OR ORDERS, DIREa3TION OR DIRECTION& IN i'lTHE ! NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR QUO WARRANTO QR CER'nORAiRl.

¶21

^s^^ ^ ^ 'i^ J' A?q-^y ^ •^asa 'tE'c"<f^$v' 'sc—,

¶22

"3'ST •<1i<.li<<f<4, ®flly!S,f®l<7f!yy

¶23

...b?..e.....^s.....^^.).^^o

¶24

gi^r'ml^fw 'TOI 371^1'aiIW	^kiiqR ^tifl 3H^?T	^.atfimantii
	S.B.: Hon'ble. Justice	N.K, AfiSirwal
	06.12.2013 Mr. HarishVerma, C	jiunselforthe petitioner.
	t D Mr. ^S.P. Kale, Dy. Sridhar, Panel Law}l'erfor Learaed counsel for the Department ofP.W.D. not conducted review Govemment's letter dated now, fhen, fhe saine shaUj wifhinaperiod of3 inonfh^ t i	ll nc be Advocate General aiid Mr. A.V. State. jfhe respondeats subinit tliat if j)fthe State ofChbattisgarh has nieeting ia tenns of State 112.04.2010 (Aimexure R/l) tiU Ibe conducted bv the aufhority frointodav.
	The above prayer i counsel.	{ 1 ^ not opposed by peutioner's
/	Accordiagly, fhe respondents are directed to ifiiot coaducted tiU now, wr
~^-	letter, as early as possible,
Sh\Tia	inonths^frora today,No ord	tr as to costs. Sd/- ^.^Asrawal Judge

Satyanarayan Sonar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanarayan Sonar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khemraj Rajak and Others Vs State

Ku.Pushpalata Sharma Vs the State of C.G.and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Seth and Ors. Vs U.O.I.and Ors.

Purushottam Lal Chandra and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Narendra Kumar Dubey Vs C.G.Adhosanrachana and Ors.

Radhe Shyam Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.