Dismissed¶¶23

Gram Panchayat Bandora v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Apr 2025WPC/259/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; WPC No. 259 of 2023; Gram Panchayat Bandora (Sarpanch Girja Tataiya), District Sakti vs State of Chhattisgarh (Collector Janjgir-Champa), CEO District Panchayat Janjgir Champa, CEO Janpad Panchayat Mal Kharoda; petition withdrawn as infructuous by efflux of time; dismissal as withdrawn; permission to withdraw granted without objection; Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad; order dated 16/04/2025; NAFR; advocates Manish Kumar Sahu, Awadh Tripathi, Shreyansh Mehta (Panel Lawyer), Adil Minhaj.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the petition; petition dismissed as withdrawn being rendered infructuous. ¶¶23

Gram Panchayat Bandora Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed byRAVI RAVISHANKAR SHANKARMANDAVI MANDAVI Date: 2025.04.21 11:24:41 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:17533

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 259 of 2023

¶7

1 - Gram Panchayat Bandora Through Sarpanch Girja Tataiya W/o Tikeshwar Tataiya Aged About 35 Years Residence Of Village Bandora, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

¶12

3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Mal Kharoda, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner	: Mr. Manish Kumar Sahu, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate
For State/Respondent No.1	: Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.2 & 3	: Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

16/04/2025

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by efflux of time this petition has rendered infructuous and seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition.

¶21

1. No objection from other side.

¶22

1. Permission is granted.

¶23

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn being rendered infructuous.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶26

Ravi Mandavi

Gram Panchayat Bandora v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Panchayat Bandora v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrawati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dilip Kumar Sagarvanshi, Vs the Collector

Mahila Self Help Group - Piproul Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Radhe Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Usha Bhuwneshwar Dhiwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Muslim Vs State of Chhattisgarh