Chhattisgarh High Court
MCC/881/2026 of KHALSA BEVERAGES (INDIA) Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 24 September 2026
2026:CGHC:41706-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 881 of 2026 Khalsa Beverages (India) Address- 104 And 105, Sector A , Industrial Area, Sirgitti Bilaspur (C.G.) Through- The Proprietor Jagpal Singh Khanuja S/o Sardar Charanjeet Singh Khanuja Aged About -35 Years
CGHC010341572026
2026:CGHC:41706-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCC No. 881 of 2026
Khalsa Beverages (India) Address- 104 And 105, Sector A, Industrial Area, Sirgitti Bilaspur (C.G.) Through- The Proprietor Jagpal Singh Khanuja S/o Sardar Charanjeet Singh Khanuja Aged About -35 Years Address-104 And 105, Sector A, Industrial Area, Sirgitti, Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Water Resources Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Raipur, (C.G.)
2 - The Executive Engineer Kharan Division, Water Resources Department, Bilaspur (C.G.)
3 - Union Of India Through- Central Ground Water Authority Ministry Of Water Resources Government Of India West Block- 2, Wing -3 Sector -1 R.K.
Puram New Delhi -110066,
4 - Central Ground Water Board Regional Office North Central Chhattisgarh 2nd Floor, L K Corporate And Logistic Park, Dhamtari Road, N H- 30, Dumartarai Raipur (C.G.) 492015,
.. Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Applicant
: None.
For State/Respondent No.
1 and 2
: Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent No. 3 and
: Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
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. Since no one appears on behalf of the applicant despite repeated calls, neither does the applicant appear in person nor is he represented by any counsel. In these circumstances, this Court has no other option except to dismiss the instant MCC for want of prosecution.
2. Accordingly, the present MCC is dismissed for want of prosecution.
3. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Judge Alok