Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 24252 (CHH)

SYED IQBAL AHMED RIZVI v. State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh

WPC/2188/2019 · 2025-03-28

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:15105 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2188 of 2019 1 - Syed Iqbal Ahmed Rizvi S/o Late Syed Ahmed Rizvi Aged About 75 Years Profession An Advocate, R/o Banstal, Babu Jagjivan Ward, G.E. Road, City, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Bar Council Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Office In The High Court Premises At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Faijal A. Rizvi Advocate, Member, State Bar Coucil Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, R/o Bans Tal Opp. Milleniam Plaza G.E. Road Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgah., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - S. K. Pandey Advocate Of Chhattisgarh Waqf Board, Ambedkar Chowk, Near Collectorate, G.E. Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Nitin Kumar Tiwari Advocate, R/o Shanti Vihar Colony Daganiya, Tahgsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : None. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Harsh Dave, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Pankaj Singh, Advocate. For Respondents No.2 & 4 : Shri Navin Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Vibhore Goverdhan, Advocate SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- holding the brief of Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.03.2025 1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner even when the case is taken up for hearing in the second round. 2. It is informed by counsel appearing for respondents No.2 & 4 that the sole petitioner has expired on 8.8.2023. 3. As there is no representation and no application has been moved for substitution of the legal representatives of the sole petitioner, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss this petition. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. However, the legal representatives of the petitioner would be at liberty to revive their prayer, if the cause of action still subsists. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi