1 2025:CGHC:50750 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3868 of 2023 1 - Salman Ahmad Niyaji S/o Late Shri Rafik Ahmad Aged About 59 Years Occupation Khand Vistar Prashikshan Officer R/o Village Bilha Thana Bilha Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chandra Kiran Shrivash S/o Late Magal Prasad Shrivas Aged About 58 Years Occupation Parvekshak, R/o Village Bilha Thana Bilha Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Lakhan Lal Dubey S/o Shri Puran Prasad Dubey Aged About 50 Years Occupation Driver R/o Village Bilha Thana Bilha Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Lakheshvar Prasad Kaivrtya S/o Gajanand Kaivrtya Aged About 62 Years Occupation Ward Boy R/o Village Bilha Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - J. D. Manghoghar S/o Jeksandas Manghoghar Aged About 59 Years Occupation Netrasahayak Officer R/o Village Bilha Thana Bilha Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Y. R. Valtar S/o Late Shri Valtar Kumar Aged About 56 Years RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Occupation Lab Technician R/o Village Bilha Thana Bilha Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director, Sanchalnalaya Suvasthaya Seva Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sayukta Sanchalak, Avigpti Sanchalnalaya Suvasthaya Seva Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sayukta Sanchalak , Sanchalnalaya Suvasthaya Seva Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Medical/ Savasthaya Officer Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Khand Chikitsa Officer Samudayik Savasthaya Kandra Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/10/2025 1. None appears for the petitioner even in second round to argue the case, it appears that the petitioner is not interested in this case. 2. In the absence of any representation on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the writ 3 petition for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat