Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 35433 (CHH)

SMT SHANTILATA YADAV v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/3698/2022 · 2026-09-10

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010276122022 2026:CGHC:39840 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3698 of 2022 Smt Shantilata Yadav W/o Shri Sitaram Yadav Aged About 35 Years Working As Incharge Fund, R/o Village Kerabahar, Police Station And Tahsil Lailunga, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Co- Operative, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Lailunga, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar Tahsil Lailunga, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Manager/ Incharge Assistant Scoiety Aadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Rajpur, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 11.09.2026 1 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the circumstances which had given rise to filing of the petition have undergone a change and, by efflux of time, the relief sought for in the present writ YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.09.11 18:02:57 +0530 2 petition has already become infructuous. He, therefore, submits that nothing further survives for consideration in the present petition and the same may accordingly be disposed of as having rendered infructuous. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the State does not dispute the aforesaid submission and submits that he has no objection if the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 3 Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the changed circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no further adjudication is required in the present writ petition. Since the relief claimed by the petitioner has become infructuous by efflux of time, the present writ petition is accordingly dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh