Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9935 (CHH)

GRAM PANCHAYAT DANGANIYA v. AMRIKA SWA SAHAYATA SAMUH

WPC/2567/2022 · 2026-04-28

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:20016 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2567 of 2022 Gram Panchayat Danganiya Through - Sarpanch Smt. Uma Kurre W/o Laxmi Prasad Kurre, Age - 30 Years, R/o Binaika, Post Okhar Binaika, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Amrika Swa Sahayata Samuh Through President - Smt. Lata Banjare, W/o Netram Banjare, R/o Danganiya, Tehsil - Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Special Secretary Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector (Food Branch) District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Office Of The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Assistant Food Officer/ Food Inspector Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : None For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Amit Nayak, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 29.04.2026 1. None appears nor is any representation made on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition even in two rounds. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.04.30 18:55:21 +0530 2 2. Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocate for respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Amit Nayak, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, are present. 3. Today, when the case is called, learned counsel for the petitioner is not present nor any representation made on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition on repeated calls and it appears that the petitioner has lost interest in pursuing the matter, as such this Court has left with no other option, but to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution. 4. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh