1 2025:CGHC:59820 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3836 of 2025 1 - Bigni Bai W/o Shivnath Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Nagpur, Tahsil Nagpur District - Korea (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Government Of India National Highway Authority, Pot, Transport Road And National Highway Through The Chief Engineer Public Works Department, National Authority Regional Office, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Punjab National Bank Through Its Managing Director, Head Office And Registered Office Plot No. -4, Sector 10 Dwarka New Delhi 3 - Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Manendragarh District - Manendragarh Chirimiri Bharatpur (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer/ Land Acquisition Officer Baikunthpur District - Korea (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Chetna Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No. 4/State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 09 /12/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- 2 “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for record of the case and an appropriate direction may be given to Respondent No. 3 to lift the transaction restriction on bank account bearing Account No. 3037000100987657 and allow the petitioner to manage transaction from her account without any hindrance. 10.2. That, the Hon’ble court may be kind be pleased to award a punitive damage to the petitioner by Respondent No. 3 for illegality withholding the bank account of the petitioner for such a long period without by issuance of writ of mandamus or any other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, in the interest of justice 10.3 Any other relief/relief’s which Hon’ble Ciourt may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 2. Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 2 & 3 would submit that the Respondents No. 2 & 3 had already taken a decision to de-freeze the bank accounts of the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner was also communicated in this regard and the petitioner has been called for obtaining certain signatures in the documents. 3. The submission of counsel or the Respondents No. 2 & 3 that a communication is made by the respondent/bank to the petitioner is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 5. In view of the aforementioned facts of the case, submission of counsel for the parties, nature of reliefs as sought for, nothing remains in this writ petition for adjudication. Accordingly, it is disposed of in view of the submissions made by the counsel for the Respondents No. 2 & 3. 6. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY