1 2026:CGHC:13070 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3142 of 2023 1 - B.R. Paul S/o Late Shri Dauwaram Paul Aged About 61 Years Working As Sub-Divisional Officer, Rural Engineering Services, Sub- Division, Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector, Gariyaband District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mainpur, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Executive Engineer Rural Engineering Services Division, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicants :- Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey,Advocate For State :- Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, P.L. For Respondents No. 3 & 5 :- Mr. Shivansh Gopal, Advoccate on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 18.03.2026 1. On 07.10.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, who usually appears on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had expired and sought time to file an appropriate application for substitution of legal representatives. Three days’ time was granted. Thereafter, on 16.10.2025 again time was sought, and on 03.02.2026 also time was prayed for; however, till date no application for substitution of legal representatives has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on query, submits that information has been sent and that the son of the deceased has been informed; however, no instructions have been received till date even after due information. 3. Considering the aforesaid aspect, it appears that the family members are not interested in prosecuting this case. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of instructions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha 3