RAJ KUMAR MISHRA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010113712021 2026:CGHC:38772-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPPIL No. 69 of 2021
Raj Kumar Mishra S/o Late Ganesh Prasad Mishra Aged About 50
Years R/o Haldibadi, Chirmiri, Police Station Cirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawan,
District Koriya Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Secretary Central, Do. P. T. Govt of India, New Delhi Chhattisgarh
ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA
... Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Mr. Raj Kumar Mishra (in person)
For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vivek Sharma Advocate General
Digitally signed
by ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA
assisted by Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. GA
For UOI / Respondent No.2 : Ms. Annapurna Twari, CGC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judge ,
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
. 09 02 .202 6
1. Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Mishra, petitioner in person, appearing
through Video Conferencing. Also heard Mr. Vivek Sharma,
learned Advocate General assisted by Ms. Anusha Naik, learned
Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/
respondent No.1 and Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, learned Central
Government Counsel, appearing for respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner, who is an RTI activist, has filed present petition

2
styled as ‘Public Interest Litigation’, seeking judicial intervention
for expeditious and time-bound consideration and disposal of
pending complaints against 45 officers of the Indian Administrative
Service (IAS). The petitioner seeks directions to the respondents
to place before the Hon’ble Court the status of such pending
complaints and the investigations conducted thereon, prescribe a
definite time-limit for disposal of the complaints, and direct the
Government to initiate and complete disciplinary inquiries against
the concerned IAS officers in accordance with the All India
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, so as to ensure
accountability, transparency and timely action in matters
concerning alleged misconduct by public servants.
3. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents
submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner in the instant
Public Interest Litigation has already been redressed by the State
authorities. It is submitted that appropriate steps have been taken
in respect of the complaints concerning the concerned officers
and the relief sought by the petitioner no longer survives for
consideration. In view of the subsequent developments and the
action already taken by the respondents, nothing further remains
to be adjudicated in the present petition. It is, therefore, submitted
that the instant petition has become infructuous and may
accordingly be dismissed as such.
4. Mr. Rajkumar Mishra, the petitioner, appearing in person though
Video Conferencing, does not dispute the aforesaid submission

3
made by the learned Advocate General. It is fairly submitted that,
in view of the steps already taken by the State authorities and the
grievance raised in the petition having been substantially
redressed, no further relief survives for consideration in the
present proceedings. He, therefore, endorses the submission
made on behalf of the respondents that the petition has become
infructuous.
5. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the material available on
record.
6. The principal grievance raised by the petitioner in the instant
Public Interest Litigation was with regard to the pendency of
complaints against the concerned officers and the consequential
inaction on the part of the respondents.
7. From the submissions made before us, it transpires that the
respondents have already taken appropriate steps in the matter
and the grievance which constituted the foundation of the present
petition has been redressed. Significantly, learned counsel for the
petitioner also acknowledges the aforesaid position and submits
that, in view of the subsequent developments, no further cause
survives for consideration in the present proceedings. In view of
the grievance having been redressed and no effective relief now
surviving for adjudication, the instant petition has become
infructuous .

4
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition (PIL) is dismissed as having
become infructuous . It is, however, made clear that this Court
has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the complaints or
the proceedings, if any, initiated pursuant thereto.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha )
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra