Allowed

Anupdas Kurre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Sept 2026MCC/879/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant applied for restoration of WPC No.6573/2025, dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-appearance. The applicant explained sufficient cause for non-appearance. The single judge held that the ends of justice required restoration and allowed the application, restoring the petition subject to deposit of Rs.2,000/- as costs.

What did the court decide?

The application MCC No. 879 of 2026 is allowed. WPC No.6573/2025 is restored to its original number subject to the deposit of costs of Rs.2,000/- payable to the High Court Bar Association Library Fund.

Anupdas Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.09.1817:03:38 +0530

CGHC010358132026

2026:CGHC:40728

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MCC No. 879 of 2026

¶8

Anupdas Kurre S/o Shri Kashiram Kurre Aged About 31 Years Presently Working As Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Bhaskra R/o Village Bhaskra P.S. And Tahsil Lormi Distt. Mungeli Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Applicant

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - The Collector District Mungeli Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh

¶14

4 - The Tahsildar/ Election Officer Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh

¶15

5 - Shri Ramesh Tonde S/o Shri Bulkhu Tonde Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Bhaskra P.S. And Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Non-applicants

¶17

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Avadhesh Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer For Respective respondents : Mr. Vimal Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board

¶19

18.09.2026

¶20

1. This MCC has been preferred by the applicant seeking restoration of WPC No.6573/2025. The said writ petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 02.09.2026 as

¶21

¶22

neither the applicant nor counsel appeared when the matter was called for hearing. The applicant has explained the circumstances which led to the non-appearance on the said date and has prayed for restoration of the writ petition to its original file.

¶23

2. Upon due consideration of the grounds urged in the application and being satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the applicant’s non-appearance, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice require that the writ petition be restored.

¶24

3. Accordingly, the MCC is allowed. Resultantly, WPC No.6573/2025 is restored to its original number subject to deposit of costs of Rs.2,000/- payable to the High Court Bar Association Library Fund.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶27

Yogesh

Anupdas Kurre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anupdas Kurre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases