1 2025:CGHC:32388 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3058 of 2019 1 - Vinod Agrawal S/o G.L. Agrawal Aged About 55 Years Superintending Engineer, Engergy Infortech Centre Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Daganiya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission Through Its Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Irrigation Colony, Shanti Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chairman Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission Irrigation Colony, Shanti Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Raipur, Third Floor, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan Power Company Premises, Daganiya, Raipur District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492013., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the order dated 15.07.2019 (Annex.P/1) passed by the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission and the Hon'ble High Court may further be pleased to quash all subsequent proceedings initiated in pursuance of Annex.P/1 & P/2. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 would submit that the contempt proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner, which is pending before the Commission, will not be pressed and is intended to be dropped. She would contend that the Officer-in- Charge of the case, namely Surobin Roy has stated this fact in an application filed before this Court alongwith an affidavit. 3. Taking into consideration the submission made by counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 and the application moved in this regard, the petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to revive his prayer if a fresh cause of action arises. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi