Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 39935 (CHH)

M/S VIKAS KUMAR JAISWAL v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/3836/2021 · 2026-10-08

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010244602021 2026:CGHC:43895 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3836 of 2021 1 - M/s Vikas Kumar Jaiswal Through Its Proprietor, Vikas Jaiswal, S/o Shri Rajkumar Jaiswal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Main Road Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Gundardehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ( Cause title taken from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ekansh Diwakar appears on behalf of Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, P.L. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Alok Bakshi on behalf of Ms. Laxmin Tondey Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 09/10/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to further direct to respondent authorities to settle the final bill of the petitioner. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the amount due to the petitioner has already been paid. He, therefore, submits that the present petition has rendered infructuous. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. In view of the aforesaid submission, nothing further survives for adjudication in the present writ petition. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ruchi