1 2025:CGHC:58984 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2928 of 2022 1 - Santoshi Baghel W/o Satyasukrit Baghel, Aged About 34 Years Sarpanch Of Village Panchayat Kura, Tahsil Nawagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Nawagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 6 - Village Panchayat Kura, Through The Secretary, Tahsil Nawagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 7 - Vishnu Koshle S/o Alen Das Koshle, Upsarpanch, Village Panchayat Kura, Tahsil Nawagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : None present. For State/Respondents No.1,3 & 4 : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, P.L. For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.12.05 10:37:49 +0530 2 04/12/2025 1. Earlier the case was listed on 27.07.2022 on that date also there was no representation on behalf of petitioner. Today also there is no representation on behalf of petitioner even when the case is taken up for hearing in the second round. 2. Learned counsel for State/respondents submits that petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment of proceedings before the SDO (R) under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 on the ground that proceedings have not been completed within 90 days from the date of issuance of show cause notice. He contended that during the pendency of this writ petition, proceedings under Section 40 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 has been finally decided. 3. In view of the aforementioned facts of the case, this Court has left with no other option but to dismiss this writ petition for want of prosecution. 4. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram