Chhattisgarh High Court
MCC/922/2026 of MAHENDRA KUMAR SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 4 October 2026
2026:CGHC:43085 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 922 of 2026 1 - Mahendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Kulbul Ram Sahu Aged About 43 Years Post Wahan Chalak Nagar Panchayat Aamdi, P.S. Arjuni, Tahsil Dhamtari, Distt- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of
CGHC010367702026
2026:CGHC:43085
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCC No. 922 of 2026
1 - Mahendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Kulbul Ram Sahu Aged About 43
Years Post Wahan Chalak Nagar Panchayat Aamdi, P.S. Arjuni, Tahsil Dhamtari, Distt- Dhamtari (C.G.)
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Nagriya Prashashan And Vikas Department Ministry, P.S. Rakhi, New Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Sanyukta Sachalak Chhetriya Karayalaya Nagriy Prashashan And Vikas, Raipur, Sambhag, Shubhash Stadium Raipur P.S. City Kotwali Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Amdi P.S. Arjuni, Block Tah.
And Distt- Dhamtari (C.G.)
4 - Tansen / Ramnarayan Sahu Wahan Chalak Nagar Panchayat Aamdi, Distt- Dhamtari (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s)
:
Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Narayan Prasad, Panel Lawyer
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.)
Order on Board
05/10/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard.
2. Present is an application for restoration of the W.P.(S) No.458 of 2015, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 30.07.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that reason best known to the counsel who was earlier representing the petitioner in VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA
the writ petition, however, in absence of his appearance, the writ petition filed by the applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution on 30.07.2024. When the applicant could not get any information, he engaged another counsel and searched the status of the writ petition then he came to know that his writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. He further submits that the matter pertains to the appointment of driver with the respondent department which requires adjudication on merits, therefore, the writ petition filed by the applicant may be restored to its original number for hearing it on merits.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant.
5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
6. The W.P.(S) No.458 of 2015 is restored to its original number.
7. The MCC is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Vaishali