Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 28909 (CHH)

ANITA AGRAWAL v. CHHATTISGARH HOUSING BOARD

MCC/946/2025 · 2026-07-21

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010396512025 2026:CGHC:31320 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 946 of 2025 Anita Agrawal W/o Bajrang Singhal Aged About 51 Years (At Present) R/o - M I G - 18, Chiranjivi Das Nagar, Housing Board Colony, Raigarh District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1-Chhattisgarh Housing Board Through Commissioner, Head Office, Parayawas Bhavan Sector- 19, North Block Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2- Competent Authority Through Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Circle Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3- Executive Engineer Chhattisgah Housing Board, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4- Asset Manager Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicants For Applicants : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22/07/2026 1. This MCC has been preferred to restore WPC No. 3194 of 2019, which was dismissed as the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WPC No. 3194 of 2019 pleaded no instruction. 2 2. Mr. Saket Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that though the brief had been taken back from the earlier counsel, the applicant could not engage another counsel and, therefore, no one appeared on his behalf, resulting in dismissal of WPC No. 3194 of 2019. He would further submit that he has a good case on merits and is highly interested to prosecute the said case. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant would oppose the submission made by counsel for the applicant and submit that the applicant has not assigned sufficient reasons for his non-appearance on the said date and, therefore, the instant MCC deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by counsel for the applicant and reasons assigned in the application, the instant MCC is allowed and WPC No. 3194 of 2019 is restored to its original number, subject to payment of costs of 2,000/- payable to the non-applicant. ₹ 6. The amount of cost may be paid to the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim