Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 48616 (CHH)

SMT. ARCHANA SINGH v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/3202/2023 · 2025-12-04

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:59298 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3202 of 2023 Smt. Archana Singh W/o Shri Ravindra Singh Aged About 47 Years Occupation-Guest Teacher (P.G.T. Hindi) Government Eklavya Adarsh Avasiya Vidhyalaya, Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) R/o. Ward 19 Pandit Dindyal Upadhyay Jagdalpur District-Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Chhattisgarh State Level Tribal Welfare, Awasiya, Evam Ashram Shaikshnik, Sansthan Samiti, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector/chairman District Level Tribal Welfare Residential And Educational Institute Committee, Sukma (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare And Development Department, District Sukma (C.G.) 5 - Principal Government Eklavya Adarsh Avasiya Vidhyalaya, Sukma, District-Sukma, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Collector Office Of The Collector Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.12.05 19:27:30 +0530 2 For Petitioner : None For State/Respondents : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 05.12.2025 1. The matter has been listed in default. 2. Despite repeated calls, no one has appeared, nor has any representation been made on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition. 3. Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appears for the State/respondents. 4. Today, when the case is called, neither the learned counsel for the petitioner is present nor has any representation been made on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner has lost interest in pursuing the matter. In view of the above, this Court is left with no option but to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh