Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9471 (CHH)

SMT. DIGESHVARI CHANDRAKAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/4951/2022 · 2026-04-27

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:19581 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4951 of 2022 1 - Smt. Digeshvari Chandrakar W/o Shri Bhupendra Sahu Aged About 31 Years Occupation - Service, Presently Posted As Sub Engineer (Civil), Municipal Corporation, Risali, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahadnadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattiagarh 2 - Directorate Department Of Urban Administration And Development,through Its Director, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Indiravati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattiagarh 3 - Municipal Corporation, Bhilai Through - The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Municipal Corporation , Risali Through - The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Risali, District Durg Chhattisgrh 5 - Mayor - In - Council Through The Mayor, Municipal Corpotation, Risali, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Anmol Sharma, P.L. NIRMALA RAO 2 for Respondents No.3 to 5 : Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Arpit Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.04.2026 1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to make a representation before respondents No.4 & 5. She would submit that a direction may be issued to respondents No.4 & 5 to decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law. 2. No objection from the other side. 3. The prayer made by counsel for the petitioner is allowed and this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before respondents No.4 & 5 and said authorities will decide the same expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi