Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34106 (CHH)

RUKAM SINGH TOMAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/3800/2020 · 2026-08-31

Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010208672020 2026:CGHC:38724 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3800 of 2020 • Rukam Singh Tomar S/o Shri Hawaldar Singh Tomar Aged About 58 Years Post Senior Horticulture Development Officer At Government Garden Ropdi Anjori Pali Kharsia Police Station And Block Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Under Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Bio Technology Department , Mantrlaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur , Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Director Horticulture And Farm Forestry (Pracchetra Vaniki) Directorate Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar , Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Raghav Swarup Verma S/o Shri Mohan Swarup Verma Aged About 58 Years Assistant Director Horticulture Balodabazar , District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None. For Respondent/State : Mr. Ramnarayan Sahu, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.3. Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, Advocate. 2 (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 01/09/2026 1. SPC issued to the petitioner Rukam Singh Tomar has been duly served upon him on 4-8-2026 by process server, still no one has made representation before this Court on his behalf. The record of the case would further demonstrate that on 25-6-2026 no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner, thereafter on 9-7-2026 no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner and even today also when the case is taken up for hearing no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no other option except to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution. 2. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2026.09.02 12:26:25 +0530