wm n 1.1,-'? 1-UGHCOURTOFGMM^r-nSGAra-IATBIl.ASPUR W.P^No.®!OOof2(X)0 "Pefitioner M/s Manish Tradnig iSompanya partnership fimi ttirough jte PastnerManishRa^SiBghartiaaion ofShiiRaj(<amatSiiigRania,^a^t 28;yeare, ResKlentef^MI 1-itWs, Raipur, Disft. Raipur ^VIP) Vereu&-::;:',- ',.,':'' ':, : •>-:::-': : • .,. Respondente 1. State <tf MadMi@ P!'adesh(now Ghhattisgart^iftFaugHjt&t3nnctpal Secistary Mineral Resources Val!^)^ Bhawan, Bh6palflyU3) 2. TheCo!tectoF,Ra!puf(MF>) 3. ©otfemmwitef Indiit liirough te Secretery Ministry of Miries, Ctepartment of Mines, Stiastti Bh%Kan,NE l&B..HIi [ 4. Go^nmlent ofjlncliaittirei^ SecFeteuyMinisfryi<rfEnv^>ni|ieitt & l?t^®ts Paiyavaranl Bhswwin CSJD. eomptex. Lodhi Road, NeWiDelhi 5. Goyi^rmient <tf Ma^^ Wroi^ft ite SeCTsl^l^fl^^ Vallabl'! Bftawan 8ttopal;<il^)a I 6. •5 BfVgay ('&iinar ChhSffi^l^B :., <Bp|oftf^^l:^-^l-y..::-S!M!|:1^'^|: Etersliian Qrih Nffnan | ^aliliarll Sani ;Mar^djt I3riysa iiE»aFsftahi NagaK^Ring Road No.t;: RajpuC W^) • t^.^:!:'::::.'l.^i ^ 7. M^t^ Prade^ S^i Mi(^ ; eoFporation Ltd. (Aa ^Owt. Gom{^y consfityted <n'»d<!r the Con'ipBfiies fucX 1958) throughj; itei Managlr^ Diraclor, f^^awas BhawSn, Awa HHts, llhd ffoor, Jait Road,®hopal. VUS>tPE1'ITION;UNBER3 R-l- t.ES^6&22f6BTHE i .-c@iSTii-aB^^iswi^i!'i:':^':::r''^^ .:';:: '^':i :'^i SB:Hon'bl6iShnSafi?ftiK.iAgnitt6tti,J. i Shri R. S. Jais^ljS^iCT^telTOCate^nt^hi ^^^^ Advoeate for the |»titioner. l ; SKn Prashantt^hia, Achscate Gefiei^wiffirShri An4nci E5ubey,|Flanej i L^iwyerfortherespOBdenteNQi^ eind2. ^ l^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^fc^ Ki ? Shri IQshore K^uttKAdvocatf^iShR^mtnfll^ar^t,^^^ ifoff ? e.r^pc^dsntNo.6. ...,;,.i ,..;.:.:.:,:-,.^ ^:h.:^;? 1 l-s N ^l-.a IHiffiii rM f l!l !;.!:1: ^:i.J^l;S:!l RU w.^WWi t:^;f^;:^'^'r ^-'.-/ '^••\^v Elhi&<bi:-l;.l;t>- F'SsSi.SjiRr HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG^fiHAT_BtLASPUR W.P.No. 5100 of 20)0 Petitioner Resoondents Versus- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ws Manish Trading Company a partnership firm ttirough ite Partner Manish Raj Singhan'ia son of Shri Raj Kamal Singhania, aged 28 yeare, Resident of Civil Lines, Rajpur, Di'stt. Raipur (MP) State of Madhya Pradesh(now Chhattisgarh) ihrough its Prindpai Secretary Minera! Resources Department Vaiiabh Bha^van, Bhopai (MP) The Coltector, Raipur (MP) Government of India through its •Secretary Ministry of Mines, Depsrtment of Mines, Shasfri Bhawan, NEW DELHI Govemment of fndia, through ite Secretary MinisSry of Environment & Forests Paryavaran Bhawan C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Defhi Govsmment of Madhya Pradesh through its Secretary (Foresi) Vatiabh Bhawan Bhopat (MP) M/s B. Wjay Kumar Chhattisgarh Exploration Pvt. Ltd. 501, Priya Darshan Grih Nimian Sahkari Samffi r^aryadit Priya Darehan Nagar Ring Road No.1 Raipur (MP) Madhya Pradesh State iWining Corporation Ltd. (A Govt. Company constituted under the Companies Act 18 ) through its Managing Director, Paryawas Bhawan, Arera Hiils, iind fioor, Jail Road, Bhopal. WRIT PET!T!ON UNDERARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTiTUTjON QF INDIA SB: Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agniho&i, J. Shri R. 8. Jaiswai, Senior Advocate with Shri Yogesh Pandey, Advocats for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Mishra, Advocate General with Shri Arvind Dubey, Pane! Lawyerfor the respondente No. 1 snd 2. Shri Kishors Bhaduri, Advocate with Shri Ambuj Agarwai, Advocate for the respondent No.6. }•, ^ ORALORDER (Passed on this t3ssl day of December,2007) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submite that this petition, chaltenging the impugned order dated 16.12.1^9 (Anneyure P/20), passed by the State Government, has become infructuous, in visw of e fact tiiat subsequent cievetopmente have taken place to the effsct that the respondent No.6 was initiaily grantsd prospecting iicence and thereaSer that Sicence granted in iavour of the respondent No. 6 v/as cancelled vids order dated 14.12.2031. 2. Leamed counse! appearing for the rsspondents have no objecSon to the above submission made by Searned counsel appearing fbr the petitioner. 3. !n view of the above, this petition has become infructuous. The petitioner reserves his rights and contenttons in Uie other msfters, which are pending consideration before thi's Court. 4. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as ha'^ng become infructuous. No order asto costs. Thakur Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge