Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 31225 (CHH)

JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/3565/2022 · 2026-08-20

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010267202022 2026:CGHC:37577 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3565 of 2022 1 - Jai Balaji Industries Limited Office - At Industrial Growth Centre Borai, Rasmada, District - Durg (C.G.) - 491009, Through - Authorized Authority Sudhir Joshi, S/o Late Shri Madhukar Joshi, Aged About 55 Years, Working For Gain At Jai Balaji Industries Limited, Borai Industrial Growth Centre, Rasmada, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh, Pin - 491009 ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - Principal Secretary, Department Of Energy, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Pin – 492101. 2 - Deputy Secretary Department Of Energy, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Pin – 492101. 3 - The Chief Electrical Inspector Chief Electricity Inspectorate, Department Of Energy, Government of Chhattisgarh, B-Block, Ii Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.08.22 10:59:31 +0530 2 21/08/2026 1. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition was instituted on the ground that the demand in question had not been adjudicated by the concerned respondent-Electricity Department prior to issuance of the recovery notice. He, however, submits that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the said demand has since been duly adjudicated. In view thereof, the grievance of the petitioner no longer survives and the relief sought in the present writ petition has become infructuous. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the writ petition may be disposed of as having become infructuous. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents has no objection to the aforesaid prayer. 3. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju