Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4152 (CHH)

Roopram Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

WPS/521/2017 · 2025-03-17

Shri Sanjay K Agrawal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 (WPS No. 521 of 2017) 2025:CGHC:12626 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 521 of 2017 1 - Roopram Patel S/o Shri Niranjan Patel, Aged About 39 Years Caste Aghariya, Occupation Teacher Panchayat At Govt. Middle School Bore, Block Baramkela, P. S. Sariya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Baramkela, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 6 - Block Education Officer, Block Baramkela, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 7 - Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jalgarh, P. S. Sariya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Gore Lal, Advocate under instructions of Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.03.19 10:29:28 +0530 2 (WPS No. 521 of 2017) For State :- Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.5 :- Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 17.03.2025 1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner pleads no instructions. 2. In view of the above, as the petitioner’s counsel has no instructions from the petitioner, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the instant writ petition for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!