Maruti Clean Coal And Power Ltd. Ward v. State Of Chhattisgarh
High Court
09 Sep 2025 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · cghccisdb
Parties
Maruti Clean Coal And Power Ltd. Ward v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Date of order
09 Sep 2025
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Maruti Clean Coal And Power Ltd. Ward v. State Of Chhattisgarh, the High Court (2025) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 2.Learned State counsel has no objection to the above proposition.3.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
2025:CGHC:46271
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2906 of 2023
1 - Maruti Clean Coal And Power Ltd. Ward No. 42, Building No. 14, Civil Lines, Near Income Tax Colony, Raipur- 492001 Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chief Electrical Inspector, Department Of Energy, B-Block, 2nd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Divisional Electrical Inspector (Electrical Safety) Department Of Energy, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
4 - Executive Engineer (Electrical Safety) Department Of Energy, Office Of Divisional Electrical Inspector (Electrical Safety), Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
5 - Assistant Engineer (Electrical Safety)-Cum-Assistant Electrical Inspector, Sub-Division Korba, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) For Respondent/State
: Shri Amrito Das,Advocate
: Shri Praveen Das, Dy.AG
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
10/09/2025
Order on Board
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that before filing this petition, the petitioner has already filed appeal before the Special Secretary, Energy (Independent Charge) and during pendency of this petition the appeal has already been decided by the authority concerned on 4.06.2024 whereby the appeal has been rejected. He therefore submits that the petitioner has become infructuous.
2.Learned State counsel has no objection to the above proposition.3.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the State.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge
Digitally signedby SUGUNASUGUNADUBEYDUBEYDate:2025.09.1211:17:20+0530
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.