Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/1045/2022 of SURESH KUMAR SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 24 September 2026
2026:CGHC:41725 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1045 of 2022 1 - Suresh Kumar Sahu S/o Chandrika Ram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Gurunanak Chowk Torwa, Mean Road Near Transform Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Mo. No. 6265074274 ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh
CGHC010056092022
2026:CGHC:41725
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1045 of 2022
1 - Suresh Kumar Sahu S/o Chandrika Ram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Gurunanak Chowk Torwa, Mean Road Near Transform Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
Mo. No. 6265074274
... Petitioners
Versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Chhattisgarh Govt., Manatralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Collector, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
3 - Commissioner, Through Nagar Palika District Biaspur Chhattisgarh.
4 - Laxmi Ruee Bhandar, Through Sitaram Agrawal, S/o Shri Surajmal Agrawal, Aged 48, R/o Gurunanak Chowk, Mean Road, Near Transformar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
5 - Aashirvad Ruee Bhandar, Through Laxminarayan Agrawal, S/o Shri Suraj Mal Agrawal, Aged 46, Mean Road Near Tranformar District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.)
For Petitioner in person : None.
For State
: Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, P.L.
For Respondent No. 3
: Mr. Manas Vajpai, Counsel on behalf of Mr.
Sandeep Dubey, Advocate.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25.09.2026
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 last date of hearing, i.e., 31.08.2026, the petitioner, appearing in person, was not present before this Court despite repeated calls, whereupon the matter was directed to be listed on 25.09.2026. Today, despite the matter being called in the second round, neither the petitioner in person nor any authorised representative appeared on his behalf. In view of the repeated non-appearance and absence of any representation, it appears that the petitioner is no longer interested in pursuing the present petition.
2. In the absence of any representation on behalf of the petitioner in person, 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