Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 24283 (CHH)

Atulesh Agarwal v. State of Chhattisgarh

WPC/2264/2019 · 2025-02-20

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:8899 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2264 of 2019 1 - Atulesh Agarwal S/o Bajrang Lal Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Hansavihar, Police Station Tarbahar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh. Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue Mantralaay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department ( National Highway Division ) Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, National Highway Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)competent Authority (National Highway ) Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Collector District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi 8 - National Highway Authority Of India Through Project Director Bilaspur, Sendari Section Of National Highway, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : None. For Respondent/ State : Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.02.2025 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner even when the case is taken up for hearing in the second round. 2. In view of above, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss this petition for want of prosecution. 3. Consequently, this petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi