Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2016 DAILYLAW 628 (CHH)

Seema Bai v. State Of Chhattisgarh

WPS/3865/2016 · 2026-09-06

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2016

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3865 of 2016  Seema Bai W/o Vijay Kashyap, Aged About 30 Years Block No. 27, Quarter No. 2 E, Rishali Sector, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh P I N 490006. ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Family And Health Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. The Controller, Food And Drug Administration Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 4. The Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Commission For Scheduled Caste, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5. Yamini Kohli, D/o Shri Harprasad Kohli, Aged About 29 Years Flat No. B/ 402, Vijaya Apartment, Ahinsha Khand-2, Indrapura, District Gaziyabad, Uttar Pradesh , P I N 201014. 6. Uma Gohiya, D/o Shri Goverdhan Singh Gohiya, Aged About 28 Years Qr. No. 05/ P H E Colony, One Tree Hills, Village And Post Bairagarh, District Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh , P I N 462030. 7. Kusum Singh D/o Shri Jagdish Singh, Aged About 29 Years House No. 258, Sector -12, Vijay Nagar, District Gaziyabad, Uttar Pradesh , P I N 201009. 8. Kiran Singh D/o Kartik Ram Singh, Aged About 35 Years House No. 9/554, Nagar Nigam Colony, Near 2 Maharana Pratap Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, P I N 495001. ---- Respondents CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : None present. For State/Respondents : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Govt. Advocate. For Intervenor : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 14/02/2024 1. When the matter is called out, none appears on behalf of the petitioner. Even on second call, none appears for the petitioner. 2. In view of the above, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss this petition for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, the instant Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna/Avinash