1 2026:CGHC:10986-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPPIL No. 5 of 2026 1 - Abdul Kalim Khan S/o Abdul Rahim Aged About 61 Years R/o Nh 30, Main Road Keskal, District Kondagaon, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector District Kondagaon, At- Collectorate Campus, Kondagaon, C.G. 2 - Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, At- Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street New Delhi- 110001 3 - National Highways Authority Of India Through Its Project Manager, At- National Highways Authority Of India, Plot No- I/21, Anupam Nagar, Tv Tower Road, Raipur, C.G. 4 - Public Works Department Chhattisgarh Through Chief Engineer Nh Zone, At- Office Of Chief Engineer, Pwd, Nh Zone, Pension Bada, Raipur, C.G. 5 - Regional Officer Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, At- N.H. Campus, Pension Bada, Raipur, C.G. (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 28-01-2026) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 18:46:32 +0530 2 For Respondent No.3. : Mr. Samyak Singhai, on behalf of Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03/03/2026 1. Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also hear Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the Respondent/State, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned DSGI, appearing for the Respondent No. 2/Union of India, Mr. Samyak Singhai, on behalf of Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, appearing for the Respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition claiming the following relief: “A. “A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue calling for the records pertaining to the question involved in this case from the respondents concerned for its kind perusal. B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue directing and commanding the Respondent Authorities to complete the construction work of the concerned stretch of road i.e.,N.H. 30 from Kanker to Bedma Section within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court. 3 C. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case may also be granted.” 3. The present writ petition is being filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of Public Interest Litigation in the interest of the public at large. The Petitioner is a local resident, social worker, and RTI activist, and a regular user of the Keskal Highway, and has no personal interest in the matter. The petition concerns the failure of the respondent authorities to complete the construction of the said highway for the past ten years, causing grave inconvenience and hardship to residents of the nearby areas and daily commuters. The Petitioner is filing the present petition on his own volition and not at the instance of any other person, and he is bearing the entire litigation expenses himself. The facts stated herein are based on information available in the public domain, including online news reports, and information obtained from the concerned departments under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Petitioner has submitted a representation dated 07.11.2023 to the concerned authorities and has also filed various RTI applications, however, no effective action has been taken till date. To the best of the Petitioner’s knowledge, no other Public Interest Litigation raising the same issue is pending before this Hon’ble Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that grievance raised in the present writ petition has been duly redressed by the concerned authorities. The issue regarding the delay in completion of the concerned work has now been addressed, and necessary steps 4 have been taken by the respondents. In view of the action taken by the authorities, the cause of action no longer survives, and nothing further remains for consideration by this Hon’ble Court. The petition may therefore kindly be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. 5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 and 3 submits that the tender for the concerned work has already been allotted to the successful bidder and the process for execution has commenced. It is further submitted that, in view of the allotment of the tender, the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition no longer survives. 6. In view of the aforesaid submission made on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and 3, and considering that the primary grievance of the petitioner stands redressed, nothing further survives for adjudication in the present petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika/Alok