1 / 3 2024:CGHC:35710 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 107 of 2012 1. Santosh Kumar Yadav, S/o Late Prabhulal Yadav, aged 50 years, Sarwakar of Hanumaan Mandir, Bhatagaon Raipur, R/o Purani Basti Gopiya Para, Danteshwari Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Madhusudan Mishra, S/o Pandit Rambharosa Mishra, aged 52 years, R/o Prayag Kunj Bajrang Chowk, Santoshi Nagar, Tikrapara Raipur (C.G.), President Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha Chhattisgarh 3. Vasudev Singh Thakur, S/o Manrakhan Singh Thakur, aged 66 years, Devotee of Hanumaan Mandir, R/o Tiranga Chowk, Kushaal Nager, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Religious Endowment and Public Trust Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 3. Collector/Manager, Public Trust Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Registrar, Public Trust, Raipur (C.G.) 5. Superintendent of Police, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 6. Officer-in-charge, Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 7. Nanesh Builders, through its Director Surendra Surana, S/o Shri Devraj Singh Surana (Advocate General of Chhattisgarh State), aged about 45 years, R/o Nanesh Kripa, Civil Lines, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 / 3 8. Bharat Bhushan, son of Nakchhed Ram Yadav, R/o Gopiyapara, P.S. Purani Basti, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : None For Respondents No.1 to 6 : Ms. Rashi Tiwari, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Adhiraj Surana, Advocate For Respondent No.8 : Mr. A.D. Diwan, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Intervenor : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 11.09.2024 1. On 16.08.2024, when the matter was called up for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners and following order was passed :- “None for the petitioners. Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer for the State. Mr. Adhiraj Surana, Advocate for respondent No.7. Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate for respondent No.8. Both the respondents No.7 & 8 have moved the application for vacating the stay since the stay is operating vide order dated 02.04.2012. If in the next date, no one appears on behalf of the petitioner, the application for vacating the stay would be considered and necessary orders would be passed. List the matter in the week commencing 09.09.2024.” 3 / 3 2. The matter was passed over since beginning of this week i.e. Monday in absence of any representation on behalf of the petitioners. Even today, none appears nor any representation is made on behalf of the petitioners. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective respondents have caused their appearance since beginning in each and every call. 4. Under such circumstance, it appears that the petitioners have lost interest in pursuing the matter any further. Hence, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution. 5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2024.09.11 18:33:55 +0530