2025:JHHC:31298-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.5695 of 2016 ---- Steel Authority of India Limited, a Government Company within the meaning of Section 2(45) of the Companies Act, 2013 represented through its General Manager (Liaison), Shri Debananda Marndi, son of Balai Marndi, resident of Qr. No. C/1, Shyamali Colony, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, having Office at Ispat Bhawan, Raw Materials Division, Steel Authority of India Limited, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi …. …. Petitioner -Versus- 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, having its Office at Indira Paryawaran Bhawan, Aliganj, Jorbagh Road, P.O. & P.S. Aliganj, District New Delhi 110 003. 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, having its Office at Indira Paryawaran Bhawan, Aliganj, Jorbagh Road, P.O. & P.S. Aliganj, District New Delhi 110 003. 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand, having Office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum …. …. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG ---- Order No.09/Dated: 09th October, 2025 1. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction has submitted that the entire amount as per the demand, which is subject matter of the present writ petition, has been paid and now nothing survives in the present writ petition. 2. Such submission has been made in presence of the learned counsel for the respondents. 2025:JHHC:31298-DB 2 3. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in accordance with law, if any cause of action arises in case of subsequent development. 4. Consequently, interim order dated 29.09.2016 also stands vacated. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 09.10.2025 A.Mohanty/Raja Uploaded