Chhattisgarh High Court
MCC/134/2026 of KISHORE KUMAR Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 2 August 2026
2026:CGHC:33580 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 134 of 2026 1 - Kishore Kumar S/o Late Ratan Kumar Adwani Aged About 46 Years R/o Chakarbhata Camp, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary,
CGHC010025712026
2026:CGHC:33580
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCC No. 134 of 2026
1 - Kishore Kumar S/o Late Ratan Kumar Adwani Aged About 46 Years R/o Chakarbhata Camp, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisonal Officer (Revenue) Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Pratap Panjwani S/o Rewachand Panjwani R/o Village Chakaarbhatha Camp, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
---- Non-Applicants
_____________________________________________________________
For Applicant
:None
For State/Non-Applicants No.1to4
:Mr. Vinod Tekam, Government
Advocate
For Non-Applicant No.5
: None
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board 03.08.2026
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. No one appears nor any representation is made on behalf of the applicant, even when the case is called in the second round of hearing.
2. In the above circumstances, in absence of any representation, this Court is left with no other option, but to dismiss this M.C.C. for want of prosecution.
3. Accordingly, this M.C.C. is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
JUDGE sunita