1 CGHC010181772021 2026:CGHC:39839 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3046 of 2021 1 - Sriram Baiga S/o Late Kunuram Baiga Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Pemla, Post Office Jamargi - B, Tehsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur , Chhattisgarh , Pin 496220., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shambhu Sai S/o Late Chamar Sai Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Pemla, Post Office Jamargi - B, Tehsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur , Chhattisgarh , Pin 496220., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - Union Of India Ministry Of Environment, Forest And Climate Change Through Its Secretary At Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh Road , Lodhi Road, Delhi 110003. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Ministry Of Environment And Forest , Through Its Secretary, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board Through Member Secretary, Paryavas Bhavan, North Block , Sector 19, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin 490042. 4 - Regional Officer Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board , Tv Tower Road, Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5 - Collector Collectorate Jashpur, District Jashpur , Chhattisgarh, Pin 496331. 6 - Divisional Forest Officer Opposite Collectorate Jashpur , District Jashpur , Chhattisgarh, Pin 496331. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.09.11 18:02:59 +0530 2 7 - Maa Kudargarhi Energy And Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Cin U74999ct202ptc010263 503/504/505, 5th Floor, Walfort Ozone , Near Fafadih Chowk, Raipur , Pin 492009, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : None Union of India : Ms. Shweta Rai, CGC on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General For State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 11.09.2026 1 It transpires from the order-sheet dated 08.09.2026 that none appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Today, when the matter is called for hearing, none appears on behalf of the petitioners. Even in the second round, when the case is again taken up, there is no representation for the petitioners. It appears that despite the matter being listed and called out, the petitioners or learned counsel representing the petitioners has chosen not to appear and prosecute the case. From such continued absence, this Court is constrained to presume that the petitioners have lost interest in pursuing the present writ petition. 2 In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution. 3 3 Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh