1 CGHC010189612024 2026:CGHC:29284-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 364 of 2024 1 - Maharshi University of Management and Technology Through its Registrar, Dr. Vijay Garudik, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Maharishi Road, Mangla, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 495001 2 - The Vice Chancellor Maharshi University of Management And Technology, Maharishi Road, Mangla, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 495001 ... Appellants versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Civil Lines, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shri Ranjeet Singh District President, National Students Union of India, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate through video conferencing and Mr. Vaibav A. Goverdhan, Advocate For Respondent No.1 / State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Rashika Soni, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13 .0 7 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Anshuman Singh, appearing through video- conferencing and Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel for ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 the appellants. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Ms. Rashika Soni, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2. 2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellants, who were petitioner in the writ petition have challenged the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No. 4324 of 2023, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellant herein has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted the Committee constituted by Hon’ble the Governor has already concluded the inquiry on the allegations made by the complainant / private respondent No.2 and the report has been submitted and now the State Government is required to take call upon the inquiry report. It is further submitted that so far as the notice issued by the Police Officer on the complaint for interrogation purpose is concerned, the same is uncalled for and they pray for quashing of the said notice. 4. In view of the same, the matter has become infructuous. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. 5. So far as the apprehension of the petitioner that the police would 3 proceed against the appellants in pursuance of the notice issued, the same does not appear to be sustainable as inquiry by the Committee constituted by Hon’ble the Government on the same set of allegation has already been concluded and the matter is subjudice. It is to be noted that no FIR has been registered against the appellants on the basis of complaint made by the respondent No.2. If any action is taken by the Police against the appellants, they are liberty to take recourse to law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra