1 2026:CGHC:21733 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1165 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chief General Manager, Raigarh, Area, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Mines And Minerals, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director (Mining) Department Of Mines And Geology, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deputy Director (Mining) District Mining Office, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Mining Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Coal, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. ... Respondent(s) Cause title is taken from case information system For Petitioner : Ms. Shrishti Attal, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate For State : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. Advocate General Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 08/05/2026 1. Learned State counsel submits that during pendency of the present writ petition, the grievance raised by the petitioner has already been redressed by the competent authorities. It is submitted that, as per the information provided, the refund amount has duly been adjusted and deposited in the heads/accounts as informed by the petitioner vide Annexure-R/4 on 23.04.2026 itself. It is therefore contended that in view of the subsequent development and redressal of the grievance raised in the writ petition, nothing further survives for adjudication in the present matter and the petition has now become infructuous. Learned State counsel accordingly prays for disposal of the writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, does not dispute the submissions advanced by learned State counsel and fairly submits that the grievance raised in the present petition stands substantially redressed in view of the subsequent action taken by the respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. From the submissions advanced by learned State counsel as also from the documents filed along with the return, it appears that the refund amount in question has already been adjusted and 3 deposited in the account/heads as informed by the petitioner vide Annexure-R/4 on 23.04.2026 itself. The said fact is further substantiated by letter dated 23.04.2026 (Annexure R/5). 5. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that no further cause survives for adjudication in the present writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE