1 2025:CGHC:5116 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 512 of 2025 1 M/s Ultratech Cement Limited A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, And Having Its Registered Office At Ahura Centre, 2nd Floor, B Wing, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400093 (Maharashtra) And A Cement Plant/unit At Baikunth Cements Works, Po - Baikunth, District Raipur (C.G.) - 493116 Through Its Authorized Representative. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Mineral Resources Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 Collector, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 Deputy - Director, Mining Section, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate with Shri Siddharth Shukla, Ms. Mukta Dutta and Ms. Samriddhi Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Shri R.S. Marhas, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 29/01/2025 Heard. 1. By the present writ petition the petitioner is questioning the show cause notice dated 05.09.2024 issued by respondent No. 2. 2. Today, learned State counsel has filed the reply to the writ petition. 3. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of para 3 of the reply of the State the petition may be disposed off. 4. Para 3 of the reply reads as under:- 3. It is submitted on behalf of the answering respondents [State] that the main challenge to the petition is to the Show Cause Notice dated 05/09/2024 and the reply has been already submitted by the petitioner on 17/09/2024. The competent authority has not taken any decision on the same. The reason for not taking the decision is the fact that in two earlier petitions namely WPC No. 6369/2024 & WPC No. 6287/2024, there are interim orders passed in favour of the petitioner company. So long as the said interim orders are not vacated / varied and the writ petitions are not finally disposed of, the answering respondents feel that any action of appropriation of bank guarantee would not be proper. Therefore, no such action is either undertaken or will be 3 undertaken in the near future, unless the petitioner fails in the aforesaid petitions. So the apprehension expressed by the petitioner company in the petition is not well founded. Even otherwise, a writ remedy cannot be sought on mere apprehension. 5. In view of the submission made by the petitioner on the basis of State’s reply at para 3, the petition is disposed off, at this stage. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti