Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Chhattisgarh State Power Holding ... vs Commissioner Disabilities Jila ... on 27 September, 2021

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                1

                                                              NAFR

   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                 WPS No. 2166 of 2013

 Chhattisgarh          State       Power    Holding     Company
  Ltd. A Public Company Registered Under The
  Indian     Companies          Act    1956,     Through      Its
  Managing       Director,          Having    Its     Registered
  Office      At        Vidyut        Seva      Bhawan,       Pt.
  Ravishankar       Shukla          Vishwavidyalaya        Road,
  Dangania,      Raipur,        Police      Station    Dangania,
  Raipur Chhattisgarh.

                                              ­­­­ Petitioner

                          Versus

1. Commissioner,        Disabilities,         Jila     Panchayat
  Bhawan, Durg Post And P.S. Durg, District
  Durg Chhattisgarh.

2. Mukesh Kumar Sahu S/o C.R. Sahu Aged About
  43     Years     Present          Posted      As     Assistant
  Engineer,      CSPDCL,        R/o    Tulsipur,       Post   And
  P.S.     Rajnandgaon,              District        Rajnandgaon
  Chhattisgarh.

3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary,
  Department       Of    General       Administration,        New
  Mantralaya, Zero Point, Post And P.S. Mandir
  Hasaud, Raipur Chhattisgarh

                                             ­­­­ Respondents
2

For Petitioner :­ None For State :­ Mr. Soumya Rai, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 27/09/2021

1. None present for the petitioners in two rounds.

2. Since there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner even in the second round, this Court has left with no other option but to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution.

3. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Sd/­ (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit