Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 13451 (CHH)

CHANDRA KUMAR BARAPATRE v. UNION OF INDIA

WPC/435/2020 · 2026-03-31

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:15074 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 435 of 2020 1 - Chandra Kumar Barapatre S/o Late Shri Anant Ram Barapatre Aged About 48 Years Occupation- Service, Working As Technician (Hydraulic), Blast Furnace, Bhilai Steel Plant, Resident Of House No. 561, Street No. 6 B, Shanti Nagar, Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Department Of Personnel And Training, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi, 110001, Delhi 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh 492002, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - General Manager (Personnel) Bhilai Steel Plant Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee Through Its Member RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Secretary-Cum-Director, Office Of Commissioner, Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribe Developmet, Block 4d, Ground Floor, Indravati Bhwan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Suyash Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/04/2026 1. None appears for the petitioner to argue the case even in second round, it appears that the petitioner is not interested in this case. 2. In the absence of any representation on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat