Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34371 (CHH)

2925/RAHUL PANDE SECURITU AGENCY v. UNION OF INDIA

WPC/2771/2021 · 2026-08-20

Shri Parth Prateem Sahu

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010159722021 2026:CGHC:37699 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2771 of 2021 1 - 2925/Rahul Pande Security Agency Sole Proprietor, Colonel Rahul Pande (Retired) Aged About 56 Years, S/o Late Shri Keshav Pande, Having Office At 1/4, Nehru Complex, Vyapar Vihar, Ring Road, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). Permanent Resident Of House No. 15, Block - D, Brahma Appartment, Sector - 7, Plot - 7, Dwarka, New Delhi, 110075. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, (Department of Ex - Servicemen Welfare) South Block New Delhi. 2 - Directorate General Resettlement Department of Ex - Servicemen, Ministry of Defence, Through Principle Director, Directorate General Resettlement, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, West Block IV, R.K. Puram New Delhi. 3 - Directorate Resettlement Zone (Central) Through Additional Director General, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, HQ Central Command, Lucknow 226002 (U.P.). 4 - Additional Director General, Directorate Resettlement Zone (Central), Government of India, Ministry of Defence, HQ Central Command, Lucknow 226002 (U.P.). ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.09.01 14:55:57 +0530 2 For Petitioner : None For Respondents/UOI : Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 21/08/2026 1. No one appears, nor any representation was made on behalf of the petitioner, even when the case is called for hearing in the second round. The writ petition is of the year 2021. 2. In view of above circumstance, in absence of any representation, this Court is left with no other option, but to dismiss this writ petition for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi