1 2025:CGHC:56421 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6351 of 2023 Reema Raj W/o- Vasudev Raj Aged About 32 Years R/o- Ward No. 41, Parsabhata, Balco Nagar, Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director General, Home Guard, Civil Defense, Fire And Emergency Services And S.D.R.F. Mana Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Additional Divisional Commandant Bilaspur, Home Guard, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Commandant Cum Fire Service And Home Guard, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - District Commandant Raigarh, Home Guard, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Abhishek Kumar Sahu S/o- Shri P.R. Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o- Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : None For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 19.11.2025 1. None appears nor is any representation made on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition even in two rounds. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.19 19:04:50 +0530 2 2. Mr. Devesh G. Kela, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, is present. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:- “10.1. This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash/set-aside the annexure P/1 and direct the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on the post of peon. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.3. Any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper may also be awarded to the Petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 4. Today, when the case is called, learned counsel for the petitioner is not present nor any representation made on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition on repeated calls and it appears that the petitioner has lost interest in pursuing the matter, as such this Court has left with no other option, but to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh