Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 25460 (CHH)

M/s NIRANJAN LAL AGRAWAL v. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

WPC/657/2021 · 2026-07-07

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010028772021 2026:CGHC:28132-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 657 of 2021 M/s Niranjan Lal Agrawal A Proprietorship Firm Having Its Office At Tulsi Marg, Korba , Through Its Sole Proprietor Raj Agrawal, S/o Late Niranjan Lal Agrawal, Aged 38 Years, R/o House No. 03, Tulsi Marg, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited A Miniratna Company Subsidiary Of Coal India Limited, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Chairman Cum Managing Director, Secl Bhawan, Seepat Road, Sarkanda , Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, Kusmunda, Tahsil Kusmunda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, Kusmunda, Tahsil Kusmunda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Central Vigilance Commission Through Its Chief Vigilance Officer , Satarkata Bhawan, A Block , Gpo Complex, New Delhi, Delhi ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Verma, Advocate MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.07.09 11:26:55 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.07.2026 1. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press this present petition. 2. Heard Mr. Vivek Verma, learned counsel for respondent. 3. As per the office report 07.04.2026, it appears that in compliance to the Court’s order dated 02.04.2026, SPC was issued to the petitioner informing him that his earlier counsel Mr. Malay Shrivastava has withdrawn his Vakalatnama. However, the same could not be served a the petitioner was not found when the SPC was being served. 4. Since the petitioner himself has instituted the present petition, it can safely be presumed that he is aware of its pendency. Despite such knowledge, none has appeared on his behalf to press the matter. 5. In the above circumstances, it is evident that the petitioner is no longer interested in pursuing the present petition. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed for loss of interest. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet