Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/4537/2021 of SHATHRUGHAN SINGH SOM Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 30 September 2026
2026:CGHC:42831 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4537 of 2021 Shathrughan Singh Som S/o Chaman Singh Som Aged About 66 Years R/o Baniyapara Ward No. 28, Near Century Garden, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh
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.
CGHC010300902021
2026:CGHC:42831
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4537 of 2021 Shathrughan Singh Som S/o Chaman Singh Som Aged About 66 Years R/o Baniyapara Ward No. 28, Near Century Garden, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Municipal Corporation Dhamtari Through The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : None For State/Respondents No.1 and 2 : Ms. Akanksha Verma, P.L. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 01.10.2026
The matter was earlier listed on 28.09.2026; however, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner on the said date and, perhaps, the matter was taken as not reached. Today, when the matter is called for hearing, despite repeated calls, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not appeared, nor has any representation been made on behalf of the petitioner to press the present writ petition. There is also no request for adjournment or any explanation for such non-appearance. In the aforesaid circumstances, it appears that the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the matter.
Ms. Akanksha Verma, P.L. for the State/respondents No.1 and 2 as well as Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, are present.
In view of the continued non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner and the apparent lack of interest in pursuing the writ petition, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/- /- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge Yogesh