Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/2135/2021 of VISHNU PRASAD DWIVEDI Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 23 September 2026
2026:CGHC:41523 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2135 of 2021 Vishnu Prasad Dwivedi S/o Late Nakul Prasad Dwivedi Aged About 85 Years R/o Village Podi, Block Bodla, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through
CGHC010111462021
2026:CGHC:41523
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2135 of 2021
Vishnu Prasad Dwivedi S/o Late Nakul Prasad Dwivedi Aged About 85
Years R/o Village Podi, Block Bodla, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Collector Kabirdham, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
3 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Kabirdham District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
4 - Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department Sub Division Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner
: Mr. Kaushal Yadav , Advocate
For State/Respondents
: Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 24.09.2026
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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, despite his efforts, he has not received any instructions from his client to argue the matter further.
2. In view of the aforesaid position and in the absence of necessary instructions from his client, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he does not wish to press the present writ petition.
3. Learned State counsel does not oppose the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed for want of instructions. Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh