Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Pramod Kumar Agarwal, instituted Writ Petition (C) No. 2477 of 2020 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur against the State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Excise Department, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited, the Collector, Dhamtari, the District Excise Officer, Dhamtari, the District Manager of CSMCL, Dhamtari, and Goyal Infratech.

The cause title of the proceedings was taken from the Case Information System. When the matter came up before the Division Bench on 02 November 2022, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner informed the Court that she had received instructions not to press the application.

Issues Involved

The operative order does not record or adjudicate any substantive legal issue on merits. The immediate issue before the Court was confined to the petitioner’s decision not to press the writ proceedings.

Accordingly, the Court did not undertake any determination of the underlying dispute between the parties.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. K. Tripti Rao, submitted before the Court that she had received instructions not to press the application.

No further argument on the merits of the dispute is recorded in the order.

Respondents’ Arguments

The order records the appearance of Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4.

It further records the appearance of Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel, for Respondent Nos. 2 and 5.

No substantive arguments on merits by the respondents are recorded in the order.

Court Order / Findings

The High Court noted the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that she had instructions not to press the application.

Consequently, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition as not pressed.

The operative conclusion of the Court was:

“The writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.”

The Court did not adjudicate the underlying controversy on merits and did not record findings on any substantive question of law.

Important Clarification

This order is procedurally significant because the writ petition was dismissed solely on account of the petitioner’s decision not to press the proceedings.

The judgment does not contain a merits-based determination of the underlying dispute. It does not lay down any substantive legal proposition concerning the factual controversy between the parties.

Therefore, the order should be understood strictly in the context of dismissal of the writ petition as not pressed and should not be represented as a judicial determination on the merits of the underlying claims.

Section / Provision Involved

The judgment does not expressly mention any specific statutory section or provision.

Accordingly, no particular section should be attributed to the case beyond describing the matter as a writ petition before the High Court.

Link to download the order

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783327852_1229compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.