MR. AASHISH DEV SONI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPC/2140/2026
Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 16th June 2026.
CNR: CGHC010162942026
Filing Number
WPC/9432/2026
Filing Date
21-Apr-2026
Registration No
WPC/2140/2026
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
MERCANTILE LAWS, COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS INCLUDING BANKING ( 21 )
Sub-Category
CONTRACT ACT. ( 2103 )
Judicial Branch
Writ Section
Decision Date
16-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 18-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MR. AASHISH DEV SONI
Adv. VIRENDRA KASHYAP,CHETNA RAIKWAR,CHETNA RAIKWAR, ,CHETNA RAIKWAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.
-
2.Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog, Raipur
Adv. AKHIL KUMAR SAMANTRAY
-
3.Collector
-
4.Assistant Commissioner
-
5.M/s Swati Management
-
6.Shri Tarkeshwar Dewangan
-
7.Shri N.K. Pandey
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Jun-2026
Hon'ble The Chief Justice,Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF
Case Summary: WPC/2140/2026 Court Decision: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog's order dismissing the corruption complaint. The court found no jurisdictional error, perversity, or patent illegality warranting interference, emphasizing that judicial review cannot substitute administrative discretion and procedural irregularities alone don't justify intervention when a competent authority has already examined the matter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Apr-2026
For Orders [On Office Notes]
Additional Registrar(j)
-
21-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WPC/2140/2026
Case Summary: WPC/2140/2026 Court Decision: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog's order dismissing the corruption complaint. The court found no jurisdictional error, perversity, or patent illegality warranting interference, emphasizing that judicial review cannot substitute administrative discretion and procedural irregularities alone don't justify intervention when a competent authority has already examined the matter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts