Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9150 (CHH)

BHUPENDRA WARDEKAR v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/3224/2026 · 2026-04-22

Shri Parth Prateem Sahu

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:18573 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3224 of 2026 1 - Bhupendra Wardekar S/o Late Dhanuram Wardekar Aged About 42 Years Working As Chief Municipal Officer At Office Of Municipal Council Dalli Rajhara, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Under Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Director Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Municipal Council Dallirajhara Through Its Chief Municipal Officer, Dallirajhara, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Addl. A.G. SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.04.28 13:34:40 +0530 2 23/04/2026 1. Learned counsel for the State submits that order of charge- memo subject matter of challenge in this writ petition annexed as Annexure P/1 has been amended and the amended charge- memo has been issued on 20.04.2026. Copy of the amended charge-memo has been filed along with Covering Memo and also served to the counsel for the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after receiving of the amended charge-memo, he has already challenge the amended charge-memo by way of fresh writ petition. In the aforementioned facts of the case, he may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition. 3. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for respective parties, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi