JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. Naresh Dikshit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Binay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 to 4 as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5. 2. The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raising a grievance against the order, contained in communication dated 27.8.2003 (Annexure-1) issued by respondent no.4, whereby the petitioner was directed to hand over all necessary papers relating to 5 S. H. P. Projects supported by M.N.E.S. to Government of Jharkhand/JREDA. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant time decisions regarding division of assets and liabilities of the Government company, and public sector undertaking including the petitioner herein were not taken under the provisions of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 and further aforesaid impugned order was issued without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that during the pendency of the present application, in the light of the order issued by the Apex Court in a writ petition bearing No, 488 of 2002* (KapiSa Hingorani vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.), an order dated 13th September, 2004 has been issued under the signature of Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, whereby on the basis of agreement arrived at, the assets and liabilities of Bihar State Hydro Electric Power Corporation, i.e., the petitioner herein, have been apportioned between the two States on the basis of assets falling in the two States. All other related matters have been resolved in terms of Sections 65(1) and (2) of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 between the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand. It is also submitted that in view of aforesaid order dated 13th September, 2004 (Annexure-7) the follow up actions are required to be taken by the State of Bihar and other authorities concerned. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents do no dispute the genuineness/ correctness of the aforesaid order dated 13th September, 2004 (Annexure-7), but they are raising only one grievance that certain projects undertaken by the petitioner, required to be completed within the time frame fixed by the authorities concerned, are not being completed by the petitioner within stipulated period. 5. 5. In view of resolution of the aforesaid dispute by virtue of aforesaid order dated 13th September, 2004 (Annexure-7), the present writ petition stands disposed of. It is expected that the petitioner as also the respondents shall take follow up actions and carry out their commitments/ obligations, which they are legally obliged to perform. 6. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. But there shall be no order as to costs.