Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/3740/2021 of NIKHIL SHRIVASTAV Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 17 September 2026
2026:CGHC:40780 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3740 of 2021 1 - Nikhil Shrivastav S/o Shri B. L. Shrivastava Aged About 56 Years R/o Rajat Hardware Old Bus Stand Kanker, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State
CGHC010238742021
2026:CGHC:40780
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 3740 of 2021
1 - Nikhil Shrivastav S/o Shri B. L. Shrivastava Aged About 56 Years R/o Rajat Hardware Old Bus Stand Kanker, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
Versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, The Dept. Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Municipal Corporation Kanker District Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector District Kanker District Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District :
Kanker, Chhattisgarh
4 - The Tahsildar District Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Naib Tahsildar (Nazul Adhikari) District Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
(Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.)
For Petitioner
:
Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhyay, Counsel on behalf of Mr. Akhand Pratap Pandey, Advocate.
For State
:
Dr. Arham Siddiqui, P.L.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18/09/2026
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. Heard.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance raised in the present petition has been redressed and, therefore, the present petition has become infructuous.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents has no objection to the said prayer.
4. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, and there being no objection from the respondents, the instant petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju