Kuldeep Singh Chawla vs Union Of India 7 Wpc/948/2012 Udaya ... on 18 July, 2018

[Cites 0, Cited by 7]

Chattisgarh High Court

Kuldeep Singh Chawla vs Union Of India 7 Wpc/948/2012 Udaya ... on 18 July, 2018

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                         1

                                                                           NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                             WPC No. 1953 of 2018

        Kuldeep Singh Chawla S/o Trilok Singh Chawla, Aged About 64 Years
        Proprietor Of Adarsh Kiraya Bhandar, R/o House No. 16/627, Tatya
        Para, Phool Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District :
        Raipur, Chhattisgarh                                ---- Petitioner

                                     Versus

     1. Union Of India Through The Secretary, National Book Trust, India,
        Ministry Of Human Resource Development, Govt. Of India, New Delhi
        (India).

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

     3. Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, New
        Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

     4. District Education Officer, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

     5. Principal, J.R. Dani Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Raipur,
        District Raipur Chhattisgarh.                 ---- Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate.

        For State                :      Mr. Arun Sao, Dy. A. G.
        For Respondent No. 1     :      Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate.

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

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No. 1 is not making payment for the work done by the petitioner.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The writ petition filed cannot be entertained being contractual dispute involving disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to make representation 2 before the respondent No. 1 who shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law.

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

SD/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court