Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25310 (CHH)

DR. KAMALKANT SHOREY v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/4463/2023 · 2025-08-28

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:44093 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4463 of 2023 1 - Dr. Kamalkant Shorey S/o Shri P S Shori Aged About 55 Years Radiologist, District Hospital Kondaganv, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Health, Mahanadi Mantrayalay, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Department Of Health, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - C.M.O. District Kondaganv (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Priyanshu Ojha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29.08.2025 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to call the entire records pertaining to this case. 10.2 Hon'ble court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondent No- 3 to reconsider the representation of the petitioner and relieve the petitioner from District Hospital Kondaganv (C.G) and allow the petitioner to work in District Hospital Kanker (C.G) 10.3 Kindly provide any other relief(s) which it deems fit along with cost of the petition in the interest of justice.” 2. During the course of hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cause of action no longer survives, and in view of subsequent developments, the petition has been rendered infructuous. 3. Learned counsel for the State/respondent does not dispute the same and has no objection to the petition being dismissed as infructuous. 4. In view of the above, and since nothing further survives for adjudication, the petition is dismissed as infructuous. 5. However, liberty is granted to the respondent State authorities to 3 pass appropriate orders in respect of transfer of the petitioner, in case exigency arises, without being influenced by this order. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat