1 CGHC010337552026 2026:CGHC:39729 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4498 of 2026 1 - M/s Pvr Inox Limited (Earlier Known As M/s P V R Limited) A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At 7th Floor Lotus Grandeur Building, Veera Desai Road, Opposite Gundecha Symphony, Mumbai Maharashtra 400053 And Corporate Office At Block A, 4th Floor, Building No. 9, DLF Cyber City Phase III, Gurugram, Haryana, Having Its Local Office At 2nd Floor Magneto The Mall G E Road NH 6 Raipur, Great Eastern Rd, Jivan Vihar, Labhandih, Chhattisgarh 492001, Through Its Authorised Signatory, Mr. Ranvir Kumar S/o Mr. Janak Prasad Singh R.S. Singh Aged About 44 Years. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Municipal Corporation, Raipur Through Its Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi Sadan, G.E. Road, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Additional Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur, Mahatma Gandhi Sadan, G.E. Road, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Mayar-In-Council Municipal Corporation Raipur, Through Its Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Sadan, G.E. Raod, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) NIKITA JAIN Digitally signed by NIKITA JAIN Date: 2026.09.11 16:01:14 +0530 2 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Sumit Nema, Senior Advocate appears along with Shri Aishwarya Kumar Dubey and Shri Ayush Gupta, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.1 For Respondents No.2 to 4 : : Shri S. S. Choubey, Govt. Advocate. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/09/2026 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, challenging the legality, validity and propriety of Resolution (Sankalp Patra) No. 13 dated 10.04.2026 passed by the Mayor-in-Council, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, whereby the rate of 'Pradarshan Shulk' (Show Tax) in respect of cinema theatres situated within shopping malls was enhanced from ₹200/- per show per screen to ₹600/- per show per screen. The petitioner has also challenged the consequential Demand Notice dated 24.04.2026 issued pursuant to the aforesaid resolution. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned resolution was challenged, inter alia, on the ground that the enhancement of 'Pradarshan Shulk' was arbitrary, excessive and contrary to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and the constitutional scheme governing municipal taxation. It was further contended that the impugned resolution could not have been acted upon without the requisite sanction/approval of the State Government. 3. Learned State counsel, however, submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner has subsequently been redressed. It is submitted that the State Government, upon consideration of the resolution/proposal dated 3 10.04.2026 passed by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, has, vide order dated 12.06.2026, declined/refused to accord approval to the said resolution. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned resolution dated 10.04.2026 does not survive for implementation and, consequently, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the aforesaid subsequent development, submits that the State Government has refused to accord its approval/sanction to the resolution dated 10.04.2026 passed by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the subsequent development brought on record, this Court finds that the very resolution which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition has not received the requisite approval/sanction of the State Government and the State Government, vide order dated 12.06.2026, has rejected/refused to accord approval to the said resolution. 6. In view of the aforesaid subsequent development, the grievance raised by the petitioner against Resolution (Sankalp Patra) No. 13 dated 10.04.2026 and the consequential Demand Notice dated 24.04.2026 no longer survives for adjudication. 7. Accordingly, nothing survives for adjudication in this petition. 8. As a result, the Writ Petition is dismissed being infructuous. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Nikita