1 2025:CGHC:51220 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3619 of 2024 1 - Santosh Yadav S/o Kheduram Yadav Aged About 41 Years R/o House No. 767, Ward No. 44, Sanjay Nagar, Chantidih, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Divya Sarthi W/o Ishwar Lal Sarthi Aged About 30 Years R/o Sant Namdev Nagar Ward, Chantidih, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Mukesh Kumar Sarthi S/o Bhagirathi Sarthi Aged About 29 Years R/o Shahid Mangal Pandey Ward, Chantidih, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Pinky Sarthi W/o Suresh Sarthi Aged About 33 Years R/o Pt. Devkinandan Dixit Ward, Chantidih, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Savita Bai Yadav W/o Shatruhan Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Shahid Mangal Pandey Ward, Chantidih, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Madhu Yadav W/o Arjun Rajnath Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Shahid Mangal Pandey Ward, Chantidih, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Rajni Yadav W/o Ashok Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o House No. 767, Ward No. 44, Irani Chowk, Chantidih, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Lalita Verma D/o Siyaram Verma Aged About 29 Years R/o Shahid Mandal Pandey Ward, Chantidih, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s)/State : Mrs. Upasna Mehta, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachchwaha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 14/10/2025 1. None appears, nor is any representation on behalf of the petitioners in spite of the matter being called on two occasions. 2. In the absence of any representation on behalf of the petitioners, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Madhurima