1 CGHC010060552023 2026:CGHC:31811 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 857 of 2023 Pankaj Kumar Taunde S/o Latel Ram Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No.3, Basti Para Pamgarh District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer Rural Engineering Services, Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 6 - Teras Ram Yadav S/o Late Horilal Yadav Aged About 58 Years Address Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : None For State : Mr. S.S. Choubey, Government Advocate For Respondents No.3 and 5 : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Soumya Rai, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 24.07.2026 1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner, nor is any representation made to press the present writ petition, despite the matter having YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.07.25 11:40:40 +0530 2 been called twice. Earlier, the matter was treated as a "not reached" case. Thereafter, when it was taken up in the first round, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Even in the second round, neither the petitioner nor any counsel representing the petitioner has appeared. 2. Mr. S.S. Choubey, learned Government Advocate, appears for the State. Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, learned counsel holding brief for Mr. Soumya Rai, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 5, is also present. 3. From the continued absence of the petitioner and his counsel, it appears that the petitioner is no longer interested in prosecuting the present writ petition. This Court, therefore, has no option but to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution. 4. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh