1 2026:CGHC:7217 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1742 of 2025 1. M/s Dheeru Powergen Limited Through The Director 109, Amrutha Ville, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad- 500082 Telangana. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Rajat Kumar (Ias), Principal Secretary, Industires And Commerce Departmet, Chhattisgarh Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Vishwesh Kumar Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited 1st Floor, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1 Telibandha Raipur 492006 (C.G.) 3. Tanmay Kumar (Ias) Secretary, Ministry Of Environment And Forests Paryavaran Bhawan, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003 4. Raju Agasimani Member Secretary, Chhattisgarh Enviornment Conservation Board 1 Tilak Nagar Shiv Mandir Chowk Main Road Avanti Vihar Raipur (C.G.) New Address Paryavas Bhawan, North Block Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. Ayaz Naved, Advocate SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 09/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this contempt petition alleging willful disobedience by respondents of the order dated 17.7.2025 passed in WPC No.3686/2025. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that this Court while analyzing nature of grievance, as raised by petitioner herein in writ petition, and considering subsequent developments taken place after execution of lease deed i.e. rejection of proposal for installation of power project by petitioner on the leased land and pendency of application of petitioner for refund of the amount deposited pursuant to norms of lease agreement, disposed of writ petition of petitioner directing the Managing or Executive Director, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., to consider and decide application submitted by petitioner for refund of money. However, when the authority concerned has not taken decision on pending representation of petitioner for long, this contempt petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 would submit that in the order, subject matter of this contempt proceeding, the Court made observation to consider representation submitted by petitioner expeditiously in 3 accordance with law. There may be some delay in considering and deciding representation, however, representation of petitioner is decided and rejected by detailed order dated 31.10.2025. If petitioner is having any grievance against the decision taken by respondents, petitioner can challenge the same by filing appropriate proceeding before proper forum. 4. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 5. Taking into consideration nature of proceeding i.e. contempt petition filed by petitioner on the ground that representation of petitioner was not considered and decided as directed by this Court and further considering that respondent No.1 and 2 along with their reply have placed on record the decision dated 31.10.2025 taken on representation submitted by petitioner, I do not find any good ground to continue any further with this contempt proceedings. 6. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are dropped. Notice of contempt stands discharged. The contempt petition is closed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to take recourse to law if grievance of petitioner still survives. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-