Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21119 (CHH)

KRISHNA KUMAR DAHARIYA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/3930/2023 · 2025-08-11

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:40632 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3930 of 2023 1 - Krishna Kumar Dahariya S/o Sant Ram Dahariya Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kevtar, Post Chicholi, Tahsil - Tilda, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh And Posted As A Post Of Peon And Presently Posted As Berla, Tahsil - Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue Disaster Manangement, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagra Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Accountant General Of The State Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Treasury Officer Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Lokesh Kumar Sahu Serial No. 19, Posted At District Office Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 6 - Khem Lal Posted At Peon, Tahsil Berla, District : Bemetara, Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Chhattisgarh 7 - Anant Kumar Posted At Peon, Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 8 - Ghanshyam Singh District Office Bemetara, Posted At Peon, Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 9 - Kumesh Kumar Sahu District Office Bemetara Posted At Peon, Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 10 - Kumendra Kumar Posted At Peon, Nawagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 12/08/2025 1. None appears for the petitioner to argue the case, even in the second round, neither any representation was made to seek any adjournment. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this case. 2. In absence of any representation on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the instant petition for want of prosecution. 3 3. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat