IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURJ' OF JUDICATURE _F_OR CHHATTISGARH AT B!LASPUF§ WRIT PETITION (Tl No. ‘:}4{3£ of 2009 In the matter 9f: Pgtitioners /(1) Chhattisgarh Private Universities Regulatory Commission; :a Commission incorporated under the Chhattisgarh Private Universities a (Establishment and Operation) Act, 2005, having its office at 29/776, Plot No.5‘ Block No.3, Shanti Nagar, Raipur 4 492 001, (Cthhattisgarh) through its Secretary BR. Chandrakar. BR. Chandrakar, S/o Late V.R. Chandrakar, aged about 62 years, Secretary, Chhattisgarh Private Universities Regulatory Commission; a Commission incorporated under the Chhattisgarh > Private Universities (Establishment and Operation) Act, 2005, having its office at 29/776, Plot No.5, Block No.3, Shanti Nagar, Raipur — 492 001, (Chhattisgarh). Versus s 1. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, New Central Avenue Building, Civil Line, Raipur. ,Respongvents Q{ Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1), New Centra! Avenue. Building, Civil Line, Raipur. / 3. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2 (1), Raipur. Before : Hon'ble the Chief Justice and his comganion iudges of the Hon'ble Hi_qh Court of Judicature for Chhattisqarh at Bilaspur. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of . suitable directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of Mandamus Certiorari etc. HIGH l CQLJRT OF CHHATTISGARH :‘BILASPUR @ ' / WRIT PETITION (T) NO.7478 OF 2009 PETITIONERS Chhattisgarh Private Universities Reguiatory Commission & Another Versus r RESPONDENTS Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. I Present :— Shri Neelabh Dubey, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondents. . ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 8‘” day of December, 2010) 1. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the application for grant of exemption has already been considered, hearing has been completed and the order would be passed within a period of one week. Thus, the petition has become infructuous. In view of the categorically statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, accordingx to the learned counsel appearing for. the petitionel', nothing survives in this petition for adjudication, at this stage. 3. Accordingly, the-writ petition is dismissed, as having become infructuous. Sd/- ‘ f Satish K. Agnihotri‘: 1' ; Judge Arun