RANCHI, India, Sept. 16 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Aug. 18:

1. These writ petitions have been filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Both the writ petitions have been filed for seeking following reliefs: (i) That in this application is being filed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs order/orders direction/directions seeking quashing of Impugned Order dated 26.02.2020 (Annexure 1/1) passed by Respondent No.3 against the Petitioners by which the petitioners have been directed to make payment of Rs. 5,18,37,10,623/- towards excess mining of coal during FY 2009-2010 to FY 2013 to 2014 but said demand is illegal, arbitrary, baseless and lacking objectivity of approach.

AND/OR

For issuance of appropriate writ/writs order/orders direction/directions seeking quashing of Impugned Demand Notices dated 20.01.2020 (Annexure-1) issued against the Petitioners for payment of Rs. 5,04,57,92,008/- which is illegal, arbitrary, baseless and lacking objectivity of approach.

AND/OR

For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs order/orders direction/directions in the nature of prohibition restraining the Respondents, its servants and agents, from proceeding with or taking any steps or further steps pursuant to the Impugned Order dated 26.02.2020 and Demand Notices dated 20.01.2020 against the Petitioners in any manner whatsoever.

AND/OR

For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs order/orders direction/directions to restrain the Certificate Officer i.e. Respondent No. 3 from giving effect to or acting in pursuance to the Impugned Order and Impugned Demand Notices or taking any steps or further steps pursuant to the Impugned Order and Demand Notices against the Petitioners in any manner whatsoever till final adjudication of this case.

3. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners, in both the writ petitions, assisted by Mr. Mahindra Kr. Sinha, learned counsel, on instruction, has submitted that he does not intend to press these writ petitions, as both the writ petitions have lost their force.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 10645 of 2025, has been filed in order to intervene in the matter.

5. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the writ petitioners in both writ petitions, and as prayed by him for leave of this Court to withdraw the instant writ petitions, since, according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, both the writ petitions have lost their force.

6. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed as not pressed and as such disposed of.

7. In consequence thereof, I.A. No. 10645 of 2025 also stands disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.