Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/3738/2021 of RADHESHYAM Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 25 September 2026
2026:CGHC:41927 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3738 of 2021 1 - Radheshyam Son Of Ganeshram Kenwat Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Darrighat, Tahsil - Masturi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sitaram Son Of Ganeshram Kenwat
CGHC010227262021
2026:CGHC:41927
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 3738 of 2021
1 - Radheshyam Son Of Ganeshram Kenwat Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Darrighat, Tahsil - Masturi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sitaram Son Of Ganeshram Kenwat Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Darrighat, Tahsil - Masturi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department (National Highway Division), Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Masturi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS System)
For Petitioners
: None
For Respondents/State
: Dr. Arham Siddiqui, PL
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board Digitally signed by AMIT
PATEL
26.09.2026
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. None present for the petitioners, even when the matter is called twice, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners.
2. In view of above, this Court is left with no other option, but to dismiss the instant petition for want of prosecution.
SD/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL