Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/2901/2021 of M/S SHRI SAI KRIPA BUILDERS Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 25 September 2026
2026:CGHC:41919 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2901 of 2021 1 - M/s Shri Sai Kripa Builders Through Its Partner Ashutosh Mishra, Aged About 38 Years, S/o Shri J.P. Mishra, Mangal Bhawan, Bazar Chowk, Chhurikala, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba,
CGHC010173912021
2026:CGHC:41919
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2901 of 2021
1 - M/s Shri Sai Kripa Builders Through Its Partner Ashutosh Mishra, Aged About 38 Years, S/o Shri J.P. Mishra, Mangal Bhawan, Bazar Chowk, Chhurikala, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
Versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Commissioner Adim Jati And Anusuchit Jati Vikas Vibhag, Chhattisgarh Government Block - D, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Department Collectorate Campus, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.
4 - The Collector Tribal Development, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
(Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.)
For Petitioner
:
None.
For State
:
Ms. Akanksha Verma, P.L.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 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. On the earlier dates of hearing, i.e., 16.07.2026 and 18.08.2026, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner when the matter was taken up for hearing in spite of information sent to the petitioner through fixed date SPC. Even today, despite the matter being called in the second round, no one appears on behalf of the petitioner, nor is there any representation on his behalf. In view of the repeated absence and lack of representation, it appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the present petition any further.
2. In the absence of any representation on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution.
3. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju