1 CGHC010217182016 2026:CGHC:36623 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 261 of 2016 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd C. S. P. D. C. L Through Chairman, C. S. P. D. C. L. Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh............Non Applicant No. 4 Electricity Company , Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Parvati Devi W/o Gaya Prasad Soni, Aged About 44 Years Occupation Housewife, Caste Sonar, R/o Jhanjhatpara, Near Maulvi Bandh, Namnakala, Ambikapur, Thana And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Gaya Prasad Soni S/o Aliyar Prasad Soni, Aged About 49 Years Caste Sonar, R/o Jhanjhatpara, Near Maulvi Bandh, Namnakala, Ambikapur, Thana And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.........Claimants, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mewalal Aged About 64 Years Caste Khatik, Occupation Surgar Cane Machine Controller, R/o Jhanjhatpara, Near Maulvi Bandh, Namnakala, Ambikapur, Thana And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh...........Non Applicant No. 01, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.08.18 19:12:31 +0530 2 4 - Shri Ram S/o Mewalal, Aged About 31 Years Caste Khatik, R/o Jhanjhatpara, Near Maulvi Bandh, Namnakala, Ambikapur, Thana And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.......Non Applicant No. 02, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 5 - Satyaram Yadav S/o Gajadhar Yadav, Occupation Owner Of The Vehicle, R/o Village Jhingo, Thana And Tahsil Rajpur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh........Non Applicant No. 03/ Owner, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellant : None For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 17/08/2026 1. On earlier occasions also, i.e., on 08/07/2026 and today also no one appears, nor any representation was made on behalf of the appellant, even when the case is called out in the second round of hearing. 2. In view of above circumstance, in absence of any representation, this Court is left with no other option, but to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Arpan