Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/1859/2024 of NISHAD BEGAM Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 17 September 2026
2026:CGHC:40802 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1859 of 2024 1 - Nishad Begam W/o Shri Takjjul Khan Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 18, Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through
CGHC010104592024
2026:CGHC:40802
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1859 of 2024
1 - Nishad Begam W/o Shri Takjjul Khan Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 18, Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Collector Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar, Tahsil Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)
:
None.
For Respondent(s)/State :
Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel
Lawyer.
For Respondent No. 5
:
Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Gouraha, Advocate.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board RAGHVENDRA
JAT
Digitally
signed by
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
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. On 04.08.2026, 18.08.2026 and 03.09.2026, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner to argue the case. Today also, when the matter is called, none appears on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the present case.
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 Raghu Jat