Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11257 (CHH)

CHHATTISGARH DIOCESE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/4008/2018 · 2025-03-06

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:11160 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4008 of 2018 Chhattisgarh Diocese Board Of Education Through The Secretary Wilsan Lal S/o Late Shri M . Lal , Aged About 61 Years R/o Netaji Subhash Complex Jarhabhata , Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Deputy Registrar Firms And Societies New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Church Of North India Through Bishop P C Singh, C N I Synod Delhi , 16 Th Panth Marg C N I Bhawan New Delhi ., District : New Delhi, Delhi 3. Chhattisgarh Diocese Board Of Education Through President / Chairman Bishop Rebert Ali Opposite Raj Bhawan Gate No. 1 Civil Lines , Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Smt. Nishita Hansa Das , Terminated Principal , R/o Shahid Gopichand Marg, Kumhar Para Jarhabhata Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : None For Respondent No. 1/ State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 2 06/03/2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following relief(s):- (i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 26.02.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 3 and resolution No. EC:101:2018:569 dated 16.02.2018 which has never been served to the petitioner. (ii) That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with costs of the petition. 2) Perusal of the order impugned (Annexure P/1) indicates that a resolution was passed against respondent No. 4 by respondent No. 3 but the petitioner has challenged that order, even though it is not an aggrieved party. 3) Taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is not an aggrieved party and further the fact that there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, this petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya