Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2842 (CHH)

SMT. LAXMIBAI VAISHNAV v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WA/118/2025 · 2025-02-17

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:8114-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 118 of 2025 Smt. Laxmibai Vaishnav W/o Shri Maheshwar Das Vaishnav Aged About 52 Years R/o Village - Khapridih, Tahsil - Tundra, Janpad Panchayat - Kasdol, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector District Baloda Bazar- Bhantapara (C.G.) 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Prescribed Authority, At Giroadh District Baloda Bazar-Bhantapara (C.G.) 5 - Tahsildar Giroadh District Baloda Bazar-Bhantapara (C.G.) 6 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Kasdol District Baloda Bazar-Bhantapara (C.G.) 7 - Smt. Amrika Bai Ajagalay W/o Shri Amrit Ajagalay Aged About 31 Years By Post - Panch, Ward No. 14, Gram Panchayat Khapridih, Post - Kumhari, Police Station - Gidhouri, Janpad Panchayat - Kasdol And District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ujjwal Choubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17.02.2025 1. The appellant had filed the present appeal with the following prayer : “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the appeal by setting-aside the judgment order dated 23.04.2024 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1699/2024 between Smt. Amrika Bai Ajagalay Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the elections have already been notified and has been held hence the matter has already become infructuous. 3. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, the instant appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. 4. Learned State counsel appearing for respondents / State is present. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet