Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 19184 (CHH)

KAMLESH PANDEY v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/4197/2022 · 2026-05-11

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:22398 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4197 of 2022 Kamlesh Pandey S/o Dharam Singh Pandey Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Village Post Bade Dongar, Tehsil Farasgaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Co- Operative, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Registrar Co-Operative Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Registrikaran Adhikari Jila Laghu Vanopaj Sahkari Sangh Mariyadit Keshkal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 4 - Pradhikrit Adhikari Jila Vanopaj Sahkari Sangh Mariyadit Keshkal District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 5 - Commissioner State Co-Operative Election Commission, Mahila Thane Chowk, Chotapara, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : None For State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respective Respondents : Mr. Malay Shrivastava and Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocates Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 12.05.2026 1 Today, when the case was called for hearing, despite repeated calls, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not appear and no representation was made on behalf of the petitioner to YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.05.12 18:36:22 +0530 2 press the present writ petition. There was also no request for adjournment nor any explanation offered for such non- appearance. In the aforesaid circumstances, it appears that the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the matter. 2 Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State as well as Mr. Malay Shrivastava and Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocates for respective respondents are present. 3 In view of the continued non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner and the apparent lack of interest in pursuing the writ petition, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution. 4 Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution. No order as to costs. Sd/- /- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh