Bhimsen @ Rahul Agrawal v. Assistant Manager,H.R. Ntpc And ANR.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1255 of 2013 Bhimsen @ Rahul Agrawal S/o Shri Nanakchand Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Nawadih Chowck, Sipat, Ps Sipat, Civil & Refvenue Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner

Versus

1. Assistant Manager, HR, NTPC Ltd, Sipat, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. Deputy General Manager H.R. Town & Administration Office, NTPC Ltd, Sipat, Dist Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. B. D. Guru, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 13.08.2019 Heard 1.

During the course of arguments, it is submitted that initially the grievance has been raised by the petitioner when the respondents have issued the order dated 08.08.2013 (Annxure P-1) whereby the licence/agreement dated 01.12.2012 for shop No.17 in NTPC, Seepat was cancelled which was subject of challenge. It is stated that the main reason for cancellation was that the petitioner has carried out a business other than the object for which the license was issued. It is further submitted that the license was issued for the said shop for sale of gift articles/ladies items and others similar products. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of certain confusion which occurred the said letter was issued, however, subsequently during the pendency of the petition, the license has been renewed from time to time uptill

2019 for the same shop bearing No.17 and thereafter the number of the shop was changed from 17 to 14. It is further stated that presently the license having been renewed, nothing remains for adjudication in this writ petition. A copy of document of license renewal is placed on record.

3. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the license which appears to have been renewed and further considering the fact that the impugned order (Annexure P-1) has been issued in the year 2012 which led to filing of the writ petition and subsequently during the pendency of the petition, the license has been renewed from time to time uptill 2019 and is operative, this Court is of the opinion that at present no adjudication would be required in respect of the grievance which was made to challenge the order (Annexure P-1). Accordingly, the petition is disposed of at this stage as no adjudication would be required. Since the license is still operative, the petitioner shall have at liberty to prefer the petition, in case any cause of action arises in future.

Sd/- (GOUTAM BHADURI) JUDGE R a o