Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 26169 (CHH)

MAA VAISHNAV ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/1132/2021 · 2026-07-12

Shri Parth Prateem Sahu

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010049132021 2026:CGHC:29516 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1132 of 2021 1 - Maa Vaishnav Associates Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Seema Agrawal, R/o Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Seema Agrawal W/o Shri Sanjay Agrawal Aged About 48 Years R/o Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Urban Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Koriya Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Superintendent Of Police Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Munucipal Officer Municipal Council Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - The Station House Officer Police Station Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioners : Mr. B.S. Rajput, Advocate RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.07.14 15:37:29 +0530 2 For State/Respondents No.1, 2, 3 & 5 : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate For Intervenor : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 13/07/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that he is having instruction to withdraw this writ petition at this stage with liberty to file appropriate proceedings, if any exigency arises in future. 2. Learned counsel for the respective respondents have not opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi