ANIL KUMAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WA/412/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010144142026

Filing Number

WA/8325/2026

Filing Date

08-Apr-2026

Registration No

WA/412/2026

Registration Date

29-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Coram

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

SERVICE MATTERS ( 6 )

Sub-Category

COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT. ( 613 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ANIL KUMAR

    Adv. ANUKUL BISWAS,SHWETA BOLE,SHWETA BOLE, ,DURGESHWARI KOSHLE,SHWETA BOLE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

  2. 2.Commissioner

  3. 3.Principal

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice,Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF

    The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed Anil Kumar's writ appeal and rejected his application for condonation of 687 days' delay, finding no sufficient cause under established Supreme Court precedent. The court held that financial constraints, lack of legal guidance, and ignorance of law do not constitute adequate justification for such inordinate delay, and the appellant failed to demonstrate any circumstance within the limitation period preventing timely action. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

  4. 08-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WA/412/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed Anil Kumar's writ appeal and rejected his application for condonation of 687 days' delay, finding no sufficient cause under established Supreme Court precedent. The court held that financial constraints, lack of legal guidance, and ignorance of law do not constitute adequate justification for such inordinate delay, and the appellant failed to demonstrate any circumstance within the limitation period preventing timely action. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case