Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 47756 (CHH)

ANUPREETI TIWARI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/9327/2023 · 2025-11-06

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:54479 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9327 of 2023 Anupreeti Tiwari D/o Shri Laxmi Prasad Tiwari, aged about 25 years, R/o Phirangipara, Kota, Tahsil and Police Station Kota, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station & Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, (C.G.), 2 – Director, Office of Directorate of Public Instructions, 1st Floor, 3rd Block, Indrawati Bhawan, Police Station & Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, (C.G.). 3 – Secretary, C.G. Professional Examination Board, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Police Station & Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, (C.G.). 4 - Joint Director, Office of Joint Director, Education Department, Surguja Division, District : Surguja (C.G). 5 - Assistant Director, Office of Directorate of Public Instructions, 1st Floor, Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 3rd Block, Indrawati Bhawan, Police Station & Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, (C.G.). 6 - Exam Controller, C.G. Professional Examination Board, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Police Station & Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, (C.G.). ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System Software) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate. For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. For Respondents No. 3 & 6.: Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07.11.2025 1. During the course of hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his grievance has been redressed and further as the cause of action no longer survives, and in view of subsequent developments, the petition has been rendered infructuous. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the same and has no objection to the petition being dismissed as infructuous. 3. In view of the above, and since nothing further survives for adjudication, the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju