Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8170 (CHH)

RAVI KUMAR AGRAWAL v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/3073/2020 · 2026-04-20

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:17976 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3073 of 2020 1 - Ravi Kumar Agrawal S/o Bajrang Lal Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Tit Colony, Kharshiya, Bus Stand Road Kharshiya, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Urban Administration, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), 2 - Municipal Council Kharsiya Through Chief Municipal Officer Kharshiya, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), 3 - Collector Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Kharshiya, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). 5 - Deputy Director Town And Country Planning, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). 6 - Premchand Agrawal S/o Lt. Maluram Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o Dabhra Road, Tehsil And P.S. Kharshiya, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For State/Res : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, GA. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Shreya Pawan Daga appears on behalf of Shri Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocates. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21/04/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 13.11.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent No.2 whereby No Objection Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner with regard to operate a Petrol Pump has been cancelled. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.04.22 18:24:57 +0530 2 2. At the outset, learned State counsel submits that they have filed their reply and annexed No Objection Certificate dated 04.12.2020 (Annexure R/1) by impugned order dated 13.11.2020 has been modified and NOC has been issued in favour of the petitioner for operating the petrol pump. As such, no grievance remains in this petition and the same has become infructuous. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the submission made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. In that view of the matter as the grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed, this Writ Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash