Chhattisgarh High Court
MCC/573/2026 of AJAY GHOSH Vs THE BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED on 28 July 2026
2026:CGHC:32663 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 573 of 2026 Ajay Ghosh S/o Late Madhavan Aged About 60 Years R/o 80-C, Priyadarshini Nagar, Risali, Bhilai, Tahsil Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
CGHC010219462026
2026:CGHC:32663
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCC No. 573 of 2026
Ajay Ghosh S/o Late Madhavan Aged About 60 Years R/o 80-C, Priyadarshini Nagar, Risali, Bhilai, Tahsil Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
1 - The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Through The Chairman And Managing Director Having Its Registered Office At Bharat Bhavan, 4 And 6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai, Maharashtra And Also At Shaheed Veernarayan Complex 1st Floor, Near Ghadi Chowk, In Front Of Collectorate, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The State Of C.G. Through The Collector Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Shashi Ranjan S/o Madan Sharma Aged About 45 Years, R/o 21 Shakuntala Niwas, Kadambari Colony, Dhamdha Road, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh
... Non-applicants
For Applicant
:
Shri Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate.
For Non-applicant No.1
:
Shri Rahul Singh Thakur, Advocate
appears on behalf of Shri Sourabh
Sharma, Advocate.
For Non-applicant No.2/State
:
Shri Vinod Tekam, Govt. Advocate.
SB: Hon'ble Shri Justic
e Sanjay S. Agrawal
Order on Board
29/07/2026
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 appearing for the applicant submits that despite efforts being made to find out the counsel appearing for the non- applicant No.3, namely, Miss Shalini Kashyap, but he failed to trace her and, therefore, the copy of instant petition has been sent to the non- applicant No.3 at his registered residential address and, prays that the default as pointed out by the Registry of this Court may kindly be dropped.
2. In view of the above, the default as pointed out by the Registry is dropped.
3. Heard on admission.
4. This petition has been filed for restoration of WPC No.1077/2020, which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 04/05/2026.
5. On due consideration and for the reason assigned in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, I am inclined to allow the same. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and WPC No.1077/2020 is directed to be restored to its original number. No order as to cost.
Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
JUDGE Kamde