Bgr Mining and Infra Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

2025:CGHC:45836-DB

NAFR

HARNEET KAUR

Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.09.19 13:14:29 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. 490 of 2025

¶7

M/s Sunil Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Radheshyam Agrawal Aged About 50 Years Seva Kunj Road Near Girls College Raigarh Chhattisgarh District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Joint Commissioner State Tax Bilaspur Division - Ii Commercial Tax - Gst Department North Block, Sector-19 Atal Nagar Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax Bilaspur Division- Ii Commercial Tax- Gst Department North Block Sector-19 Atal Nagar Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Commercial Tax Officer Raigarh Circle Circle - Ii Korba Commercial Tax- Gst Department North Block, Sector -19 Atal Nagar Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

2

¶14

4 - Commercial Tax Officer Raigarh Circle-I, Commercial TaxGst Department North Block Sector-19 Atal Nagar Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶15

5 - Assistant Commissioner , Circle-I, Raigarh Commercial TaxGst Department North Block Sector-19 Atal Nagar Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶16

--- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ramit Mehta (appeared through video conferencing) with Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocates For Respondents/ State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A.

¶17

Writ Appeal No. 436 of 2025

¶18

BGR Mining And Infra Limited A Company Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Office At 8-2-596/r, Road No. 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500034, Telangana (State), And Its Office At 598/6, S S Plaza, P.H. Road, Korba, P.O. And P.S. Korba, District- Korba Chhattisgarh

¶19

Appellant

¶20

versus

¶21

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Commercial Taxes, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Mandir Hasod, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶22

2 - Joint Commissioner Of State Tax Bilaspur, Division No. 2, P.O. And P.S. Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶23

3

¶24

3 - Deputy Commissioner Of State Taxs Bilaspur Division No. 2, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶25

4 - Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Korba Division, Korba, District Corba, Chhattisgarh

¶26

5 - Commercial Tax Officer (Commercial Tax Circle-2), Korba Division, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶27

--- Respondents

¶28

For Appellant : Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate

¶29

For Respondents/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A.

¶30

Writ Appeal No. 524 of 2025

¶31

M/s Naraayani Sons Private Limited 209, Ajc Bose Road, Kamani Estate, 4th Floor, Room No 166, Kolkata 700017, Cin U51900wb2005ptc102304 Through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Rajendra Kr. Agrawal, S/o Banwari Lal Agrawal, Aged About 53 Years , R/o 19 C, Harish Mukherjee Road, Kolkata (W.B.)

¶32

--- Appellant

¶33

Versus

¶34

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Commercial Tax Gst Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya , Atal Nagar , Nawa Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶35

2 - Divisional Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax, Bilaspur Division Ii Commercial Tax Gst Department Ambe Plaza, Tifra, Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶36

4

¶37

3 - Joint Commissioner State Tax Bilaspur Division Ii, Commercial Tax Gst Department , Ambe Plaza , Tifra , Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.,

¶38

4 - Commercial Tax Officer Commercial Tax, Korba , Circle Ii, Commercial Tax Gst Department , Collectorate Campus, Korba , District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶39

5 - Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax, Bilaspur Division Ii, Commercial Tax Gst Department, Ambe Plaza , Tifra , Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶40

6 - Commissioner Commercial Tax Department, Department Of Commercial Tax Gst , Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶41

--- Respondents

¶42

For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Sahu on behalf of Mr. Neelabh Dubey, Advocate

¶43

For Respondents/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A.

¶44

Writ Appeal No. 516 of 2025

¶45

Dee Cee Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. A Company Duly Registered Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered Office At 206, Palco House, 2162/ T-10, Guru Arjun Nagar, Main Road, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi 110008 Through Its Authorized Signatory - Ravindra Bura S/o Late Shri Dei Ram Bura, Aged About 60 Years, R/o M.I.G.-1/59, Mp Nagar Extension, Korba, District Korba - 495677, (Appellant)

--- Appellant

Versus

5

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Commercial Tax - G.S.T., Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶50

2 - Divisional Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax, Bilaspur Division - Ii, Commercial Tax Gst Department, Ambe Plaza, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶51

3 - Joint Commissioner State Tax Bilaspur Division - Ii, Commercial Tax Gst Department, Ambe Plaza, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶52

4 - Commercial Tax Officer Commercial Tax, Korba, Circle - I, Commercial Tax Gst Department, Collectorate Campus, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶53

5 - Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax, Bilaspur Division Ii, Commercial Tax Gst Department, Ambe Plaza, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶54

6 - Commissioner Commercial Tax Department, Department Of Commercial Tax Gst Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶55

--- Respondents

¶56

For Appellant : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A.

¶57

Writ Appeal No. 515 of 2025

¶58

Dee Cee Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. A Company Registered Under The Provision Of The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered Office At 206, Palco House, 2162/ T-10, Guru Arjun Nagar, Main Road, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, 110008, Through Its

¶59

6

¶60

Authorized Signatory, Ravindra Bura, S/o Late Sri Dei Ram Bura, Aged About 60 Years R/o Mig-1/59, M P Nagar, Extension, Korba District Korba 495677

¶61

--- Appellant

¶62

Versus

¶63

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Commercial Tax Gst, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶64

2 - Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bilaspur Division Ii, Commercial Tax-Gst Department, Ambe Plaza, Tifra, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶65

3 - Joint Commissioner, State Tax Bilaspur Division Ii, Commercial Tax-Gst, Department, Ambe Plaza, Tifra, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶66

4 - Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax, Korba, Circle-Ii, Commercial Tax, Gst, Department, Collectorate Campus, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶67

5 - Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Bilaspur DivisionIi, Commercial Tax-Gst Department, Ambe Plaza, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶68

6 - Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Department Of Commercial Tax, Gst, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶69

--- Respondents

¶70

For Appellant	: Mr.	Anand Dadariya, Advocate
For Respondents/State	: Mr.	Rahul Tamaskar, G.A.

¶71

7

¶72

Writ Appeal No. 437 of 2025

¶73

BGR Mining And Infra Limited A Company Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Office At 8-2-596/r, Road No. 10, Bajara Hills, Hyderabad-500034 (Telangana State) And Its Office At 598/6, S. S. Plaza, P.H. Road, Korba, P.O. And P.S. - Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶74

--- Appellant

¶75

Versus

¶76

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Commercial Taxes, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Mandir Hasod, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶77

2 - Joint Commissioner Of State Tax Bilaspur, Division No. 2, Post Office And Police Station Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶78

3 - Deputy Commissioner Of State Taxs Bilaspur, Division No. 2, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶79

4 - Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Korba Division, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶80

5 - Commercial Tax Officer (Commercial Tax Circle-2) Korba Division, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶81

--- Respondents

¶82

For Appellant : Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A.

¶83

Division Bench

¶84

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶85

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶86

Judgment On Board

¶87

8

¶88

09.09.2025

¶89

1. Since common question of fact and law is involved in all these writ appeals, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

¶90

2. By way of these writ appeals, the appellants herein have questioned the legality, validity and correctness of impugned order dated 03/04/2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petitions preferred by the appellants/petitioners have been dismissed on the ground of availability of efficacious alternate remedy holding that the appellants/petitioners have alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority.

¶91

3. Writ Appeal No. 490/2025 is taken up as the lead case and facts of this case are taken for deciding all the appeals. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop :-

¶92

(i) Appellant firm is registered dealer under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as “the CGVAT Act”) and Central Sales Tax, 1956 (hereinafter referred as “CST Act”) and it has also been granted registration certificate dated 01/07/2014 as Class

¶93

9

¶94

“A” contractor by the office of the Engineer-in-Chief Public Works Department, Chhattisgarh. The appellant firm requires High Speed Diesel for the purpose of running of machineries and for performance of the work order as granted to the petitioner, as such, the appellant firm vide its application dated 23/12/2019 addressed to respondent No. 4 i.e. the Commercial Tax Officer for seeking amendment in the registration certificate issued under the CST Act and CGVAT Act on account that the appellant firm will be granted work related to mining and such amendment is necessary so as to procure High Speed Diesel interstate against C form.

¶95

(ii) Respondent No. 4, after consideration, allowed the application of the appellant firm and conveyed that the words “High Speed Diesel for Mining Machinery” will be added in the registration certificate and be effective from 05/02/2020 and the amendment was given effect to by respondent No. 3 by inserting the aforesaid words.

¶96

(iii) Thereafter, on 01/10/2020 (Annexure P-13 of the writ petition), respondent No. 1 issued impugned notice under Section 49(1) of the CGVAT Act read with Section 9(2) of the CST Act stating that the appellant firm has misused C form and invoking suo-moto power as envisaged under Section 49(1) of the CGVAT Act, the appellant firm was called upon

¶97

10

¶98

to produce the documents to prove that they are engaged in mining activity to which the appellant firm submitted its reply on 03/10/2020 (Annexure P-14 of the writ petition) stating that the amendment has rightly been allowed in the registration certificate for use of High Speed Diesel in Mining Machinery.

¶99

(iv) However, respondent No. 2 passed impugned order dated 14/10/2020 (Annexure P-15 of the writ petition) under Section 49(3) of the CGVAT Act read with Section 9(2) of the CST Act while adjudicating upon the impugned notice dated 01/10/2020 and directed for deletion of the words “High Speed Diesel for Mining Machinery” from the registration form.

¶100

(v) Being aggrieved with the impugned notice dated 01/10/2020 and impugned order dated 14/10/2020, the appellant firm along with the other appellants herein preferred a bunch of writ petitions bearing WPT/99/2020 and other connected matters which was allowed in toto by learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 18/10/2022 (Annexure A-2) by setting aside the impugned order dated 14/10/2020 as well as impugned notice dated 01/10/2020 by repelling and over-ruling the plea of availability of alternative statutory remedy taken by the respondents/State.

¶101

11

¶102

(v) Challenging the order dated 18/10/2022, the respondents/State preferred a batch of writ appeals inlcuding WA/121/2023 whereby the Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 01/09/2023 (Annexure A- 3), allowed the appeals of the respondents/State and after setting aside the order of learned Single Bench, remitted the matter to learned Single Judge for deciding it afresh in accordance with law. Though the plea was taken by the respondents/State that the petition as framed without availing the alternative statutory remedy for questioning the order impugned as prescribed under Section 49(4) of the CGVAT Act is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone but the Division Bench did not dismiss the writ petitions on that ground rather touched upon the merits of the matter and remitted it to learned Single Judge with a direction to decide it in accordance with law.

¶103

(vi) Thereafter, again the writ petitions were taken up for hearing by learned Single Judge after being remitted by the Division Bench and this time, learned Single Judge entertained the plea of availability of alternative statutory remedy and dismissed the writ petitions vide impugned order dated 03/04/2025 (Annexure A-1) which has led to the filing of the instant appeals by the appellant firms.

¶104

12

¶105

4. It is the case of the appellants that no opportunity of hearing was granted to them under Section 49(1) and 49(3) of the CGVAT Act and thus, the impugned notice dated 01/10/2020 (Annexure P-13 of the writ petition) is bad in law and furthermore, there is a serious legal question of law involved in the matter as respondent No. 2, while passing the impugned order dated 14/10/2020 (Annexure P-15 of the writ petition), has done violence to the statute by misinterpreting an misconstruing the term “in Mining” as employed under unamended Section 8(3)(b) of the CST Act.

¶106

5. Mr. Ramit Mehta and Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant in WA/490/2025, would submit that learned Single Judge, in the first round of litigation, while passing the order dated 18/10/2022 (Annexure A-2), had already dealt with the issue of alternative remedy in detail and held that only because of availability of alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under the law, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be dismissed and the Courts while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain this writ petition and allowed it on merits. Thereafter, the Division Bench, while passing the judgment dated 01/09/2023 (Annexure A-3), did not consider the

¶107

13

¶108

plea of alternative remedy taken by the respondents/State and remanded the matter to learned Single Judge for deciding it afresh in accordance with law and since the said judgment of the Division Bench was never challenged by the respondents/State on the ground that the Division Bench ought to have dismissed the writ petition on account of availability of alternative remedy, therefore, it has attained finality and in the second round of litigation, learned Single Judge could not have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy rather the writ petition ought to have been considered on merits as it involves serious question of law and dispute with regard to misinterpretation of the term ‘in mining’ as employed under Section 8(3)(b) of the CST Act. They would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-assessing authority and Others 1 and Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Others 2 and submit that the impugned order dated 03/04/2025 (Annexure A-1) be set aside and appropriate order may be passed while remanding the matter to learned Single Judge for deciding it on merits.

¶109

2 (2022) 16 SCC 428

¶110

1 2023 SCC Online SC 95

¶111

14

¶112

6. Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned counsel for the appellant in WA/515/2025 and WA/516/2015, would support the aforesaid submission and further place reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Daryao and Others v. State of U.P. and Others 3.

¶113

7. Mr. Apurv Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant in WA/436/2025 and WA/437/2025 as well as Mr. Jitendra Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant in WA/524/2025, also seek the setting aside/quashment of order impugned dated 03/04/2025 (Annexure A-1) and rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of

¶114

Radha Raman Samanta v. Bank of India and Others 4.

¶115

8. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State, would support the order passed by learned Single Judge and submit that the Division Bench had remitted the matter to learned Single Judge to decide it in accordance with law which would also mean that it was open to learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy by filing appeal under Section 49(4) of the CGVAT Act before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, as such, the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein have rightly

¶116

4 (2004) 1 SCC 605

¶117

3 AIR 1961 SC 1457

¶118

15

¶119

been dismissed and the instant appeals are also liable to be dismissed.

¶120

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶121

10. It is not in dispute that in the first round of litigation, the appellants herein filed a bunch of writ petitions and questioned the notice dated 01/10/2020 (Annexure P-13 of the writ petition) as well as order dated 14/10/2020 (Annexure P-15 of the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 by which the words “High Speed Diesel for Mining Machinery” were directed to be deleted from the registration certificate whereby learned Single Judge, vide order dated 18/10/2022 (Annexure A-2), over-ruled the plea of alternative statutory remedy taken by the

¶122

respondents/State and decided the writ petitions on merits and set aside the order dated 14/10/2020 in toto, which was put to challenge by the respondents/State in writ appeal whereby the Division Bench, by its judgment dated 01/09/2023 (Annexure A-3), only held that notice dated 01/10/2020 is a proper notice and though noted the plea of alternative remedy taken by the respondents/State but did not entertain that plea and while allowing the appeal, remitted the matter back to learned Single Judge for

¶123

16

¶124

deciding in accordance with law. As such, the order passed by the Division Bench had attained finality and when the matter was remitted back, learned Single Judge could not have dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy without going into the merits of the matter.

¶125

11. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Radha Raman Samanta (supra) may be noticed herein profitably, which is based on similar set of facts as the instant case and whereby their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as under :-

¶126

“12. On the earlier occasion when the matter was considered by the Division Bench the respondentBank did not raise any issue of alternative remedy or any question relating to non-maintainability of the writ petition. We may also notice that when such issues might and ought to have been raised but had not been done so, it must be taken that the Division Bench had rejected such contentions and the order of the Division Bench remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge was not carried in appeal and became final. Therefore, the learned single Judge was bound to address only on one issue upon which the matter had been remanded. Thus, the Division Bench could not have overlooked these facts in the appeal arising from the order of the learned single Judge on the second occasion after remand and need not have gone into the question as lo whether the writ petition could have been entertained at all or not. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court could not have overlooked these facts and interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. ”

¶127

17

¶128

12. In the instant case, once the Division Bench had remitted the matter to learned Single Judge for deciding it in accordance with law, without entertaining the plea of availability of alternative statutory remedy, which was also not accepted by learned Single Judge in the first round of litigation, therefore, it has attained finality and as such, in the second round of litigation, it was not open to learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petitions on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy. [See: Radha Raman Samanta (supra)]

¶129

13. Moreover, one of the legal issues involved in the writ petitions is with regard to the impugned action of respondent No. 2 directing deletion of the words “High Speed Diesel for Mining Machinery” from the registration form after misinterpreting the term “in mining” as employed under unamended Section 8(3)(b) of the CST Act. Since the Division Bench had remanded the matter for deciding it in accordance with law, learned Single Judge ought to have gone into the said legal issue involved in the matter rather than going back and dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy, which issue had already attained finality by the orders of learned Single Judge affirmed by the Division Bench in the first round of litigation.

¶130

18

¶131

14. In the matter of M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (supra), it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that where the controversy is a purely legal one and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law, then it should be decided by this court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being available, which has been observed in paragraph 8 of the report as under :-

¶132

“8. That apart, we may also usefully refer to the decisions of this Court reported in (1977) 2 SCC 724 (State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.) and (2000) 10 SCC 482 (Union of India vs. State of Haryana) . What appears on a plain reading of the former decision is that whether a certain item falls within an entry in a sales tax statute, raises a pure question of law and if investigation into facts is unnecessary, the high court could entertain a writ petition in its discretion even though the alternative remedy was not availed of; and, unless exercise of discretion is shown to be unreasonable or perverse, this Court would not interfere. In the latter decision, this Court found the issue raised by the appellant to be pristinely legal requiring determination by the high court without putting the appellant through the mill of statutory appeals in the hierarchy. What follows from the said decisions is that where the controversy is a purely legal one and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law, then it should be decided by the high court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being available.”

¶133

15. Similarly, in the matter of Magadh Sugar and Energy

¶134

Limited (supra), the Supreme Court has held that where the question of law involved is comprehensive reading of

¶135

19

¶136

the provisions of an Act and can be adjudicated without delving into any factual dispute, it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court and further held that while a High Court would normally not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available, the existence of an alternative remedy does not by itself bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction in certain contingencies. Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the judgment may be noticed herein profitably :-

¶137

“26. The issues raised by the appellant are questions of law which require, upon a comprehensive reading of the Bihar Electricity Act, a determination of whether tax can be levied on the supply of electricity by a power generator (which also manufactures sugar) supplying electricity to a distributor; and whether the first respondent has the legislative competence to levy duty on the sale of electricity to an intermediary distributor in view of the decision of this Court in State of A.P. v. NTPC Ltd., (2002) 5 SCC 203 . The question of whether the appellant is liable to file returns under Sections 6-B(1) and 5-A of the Act is directly related to the issue of whether the sale of electricity by the appellant to BSEB falls under the charging provisions of Section 3(1). The questions raised by the appellant can be adjudicated without delving into any factual dispute. Thus, the present matter is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

¶138

We are of the considered view that the High Court made an error in declining to entertain the writ petition and it would be appropriate to restore the proceedings back to the High Court for a fresh disposal. In order to facilitate the decision on remand, we have recorded the broad submissions of the parties on merits but leave the matter open for a fresh evaluation by the High Court. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the

¶139

20

¶140

High Court dated 18-9-2017 arising out of CWJC No. 4300 of 2015. The writ petition is restored to the file of the High Court for fresh determination. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.”

¶141

16. For the reasons mentioned herein-above in light of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Radha Raman Samanta (supra), M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. and Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited (supra) and in view of the order passed by the Division Bench in the first round, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge is unjustified in dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy without going into the merits of the matter, as was directed by the Division Bench, even though the question of availability of alternative statutory remedy was over-ruled by learned Single Judge in the first round of litigation and it was also not entertained by the Division Bench, therefore, once the order of Division Bench had attained finality, learned Single Judge could not have gone into the said question again and could not have dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Accordingly, the impugned common order dated 03/04/2025 (Annexure A-1) is hereby set aside and matter is remitted to learned Single Judge to decide the writ petitions on merits and/or the question of law involved, if

¶142

21

¶143

any. We request the writ court to take up the matter and decide it expeditiously keeping in view that the impugned order in question was passed on 14/10/2020 (Annexure P- 15 of the writ petition).

¶144

17. With the aforesaid observations, this batch of writ appeals are allowed with no order as to cost(s).

¶145

Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶146

Harneet

Bgr Mining and Infra Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

Bgr Mining and Infra Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharti Telemedia Ltd. Vs State of Cg and Others

M/S Sun Direct Tv Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Cg and Others

M/S Tata Sky Ltd. Vs State of Cg and Others

Smt. Asha Sharma Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Naraayani Sons Private Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dee Cee Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh