Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 26337 (CHH)

C.B. LONDHEKAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/5938/2019 · 2026-07-13

Shri Sanjay K Agrawal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010261612019 2026:CGHC:29700 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5938 of 2019 C.B. Londhekar, S/o. Late Bhaskar Rao Londhekar, Aged About 52 Years, R/o. A-36, Steel City, Gayatri Nagar, Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Bio-Technology Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Under Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Bio-Technology Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Director, Directorate Of Agriculture, Labhandi, Ravigram, Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.07.14 16:17:28 +0530 2 (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 14.07.2026 1. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that proforma promotion has been granted by the State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to submit a representation before the competent authority of the State of Madhya Pradesh for other benefits. 2. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned State counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer. 3. Be that as it may, if the petitioner makes a representation before the competent authority of the State of Madhya Pradesh within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 4. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the competent authority of the State of Madhya Pradesh shall consider and decide the petitioner’s 3 representation independently, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law. 5. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge