as &. ^: a. 983&1 EsK IN' y HIBH COURT OF JUDICftTU8E^_ ftT JftBAL.Pt W.P. N0 PETITIONER ^^ -£. /20BB M.P. Tobacco Ltd., a conipany duly incorporated under the Companies Ac-t, 1956, having 1'k's registered office at 123/B Raibahadur Road, ealcutta- 700 034, and haying it's o-f-fice and Works a't Phulgaon.1 F'oti.a Rpad, Durg (MP). •tf^. VERSUS RESPONDENTS; ^ 1. Union of India through the Secretary, •Ministry of Finance. North Block. NEW DELHI ? . Coinfflissioner of Central EKCise (fidj), Room No.136, C.R. Building, New Delhi. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 DF THE Ea»ST@UTMN OF >INDIA FOR JSSUfiNCE OF ft WRIT IN THE NfiTtBiE OE eERTIORfiRI. MfiNDAMUS. DIRECtIOM/DIREGTIt <S. QRDER/ORBEBS . g HiGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRi H.L. DATTU, CJ AND HON'BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. Writ Petition No.4984 of 2000 M.P. Tobacco Ltd. VERSUS RESPONDENTS Union of india and another. Present: Shri Amrito Das, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Bhishma Kinger, Standing counsel for Union of india. ORAL ORDER [Passed on 28ih February, 2007) The foilowing orai order of the Court was passed by H.L. The petitioner is a private limited company. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india seekine the following retiefs :- "i) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to supply copies of al documents relied upon in the show cause notice dated 29/9/95 (Annexure P/ ); ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to deposit al reiied upon documents with the respondent No.2; ii) to give any relief, orders or directions as it deems fit and expedient under the present facts and circumstances of the case. iv) Cost of the petltion may also kindiy be awarded - infavourofthe petitioner". --'" (2) This Court, while entertaining the writ petition, had granted an interim order staying the proceedings before the Commissioner ofCentral Excise (Appeais), New Delhi. (3) We are informed by learned Standing Counsei appearing for the Union of India/respondents that this writ petition was rejected by this Court for non-Drosecution. Before restoration of the writ petltion, ths 2 respondent has already passed an order on the apReal fiied by the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the correctness of the statement made by learned Standing Counsel for the responctents. Therefore, in our view, the reiief sought for in this writ petition would notsurvive for our consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. However, !iberty is reserved to the petitioner to make appropriate application before this Court, if for any reason, the statement made by learned Star.ding Counsel appearing for the respondents is not correct. Ordered accordinglY. Sd//- Sd/- ChiefJustice V.K.Shrivastava Judge '"13