Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 32071 (CHH)

SAHMAD HUSSAIN v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCC/747/2026 · 2026-08-12

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010273902026 2026:CGHC:35838 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 747 of 2026 1 - Sahmad Hussain Son Of Mohd. Zamir Miyan, Aged About 51 Years Resident Of B. S. U. P. 5/11, Awadhpara, Sondongri, Tahsil And District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Housing Board, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chairman Chhattisgarh Housing Board Sub Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Radha Devi Agrawal Alias Sudha Singhania W/o Sanjay Singhania Aged About 50 Years R/o M I G/ K B T 163, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.M. Hasan, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Amit Nayak, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 13/08/2026 1. None for the petitioner. 2. Heard on MCC No. 747/2026, which is an application for restoration of WPC No. 4321/2022 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 8.7.2026 for want of prosecution. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and WPC No. 4321/2022 is directed to be restored to its original number subject to deposit of costs of Rs. 3,000/- payable to the High Court Bar Association Library Fund. 4. Later on, immediately after passing of the order, Mr. G.M. Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, appeared and submitted that he could not appear when the matter was called, as he reached the Court within two minutes thereafter. He, therefore, requested that the order imposing costs may be reconsidered, as the petitioner is a poor person. 5. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the costs imposed by this Court are hereby exempted. Accordingly, the petitioner is not required to pay any costs for restoration of the case. 6. The Registry is directed to restore the case without being influenced by the earlier part order. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat