Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14254 (CHH)

MUKESH KUMAR BANWASI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/1563/2022 · 2025-03-26

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:14476 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1563 of 2022 1 - Mukesh Kumar Banwasi S/o Shri Mohan Lal Banwasi, Aged About 34 Years House No. 13, Ward No. 27, Polsaipara, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Manish Travels, Shop No. 11, New Bus Stand Durg (Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Nirbhandar Singh Bal, Jagirdar Bus Service, Lalbhag, Housing Board Colony, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - M/s Nimit Travels, Through Partner Vinit Kumar Lunia, Chaoghariapara, Behind Durga Mandir, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 6 - Rasid Ahmed, Through Saikripa Travels, Shivnath Colony VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Bharkapara, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. B.L. Dembra, Advocate For State :- Ms. Anuja Sharma, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 26.03.2025 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has no instructions in this case as earlier it was decided and disposed off and thereafter, the order was set-aside in review. As such, he has no contact with the petitioner. 2. In view of the above submission, writ petition is dismissed for want of instructions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha