BALRAM SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPC/2402/2026

Disposed: Contested--INFRUCTUOUS on 15th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010184602026

Filing Number

WPC/10625/2026

Filing Date

05-May-2026

Registration No

WPC/2402/2026

Registration Date

11-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL MATTERS ( 17 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS AND MIXED BAG ONES.. ( 1750 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

15-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--INFRUCTUOUS

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BALRAM SAHU

    Adv. Ramcharan Sahu

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.Managing Director

    Adv. JITENDRA SHRIVASTAVA

  3. 3.Collector, Bilaspur

  4. 4.Chief Executive Officer

  5. 5.Branch Manager

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore PrasadView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed Balram Sahu's writ petition as infructuous after the State argued that the petitioner's main relief—reopening the Prathamik Krishi Shakh Sahkari Samity (agricultural cooperative society) in Seepat—had already been granted. Although the petitioner contended that fertilizer supplies were still not being provided to the centre, the court found the petition moot. The court permitted the petitioner to file fresh applications before concerned authorities for his remaining grievances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-May-2026

    For Orders [On Office Notes]

    Additional Registrar(j)

  4. 05-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPC/2402/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed Balram Sahu's writ petition as infructuous after the State argued that the petitioner's main relief—reopening the Prathamik Krishi Shakh Sahkari Samity (agricultural cooperative society) in Seepat—had already been granted. Although the petitioner contended that fertilizer supplies were still not being provided to the centre, the court found the petition moot. The court permitted the petitioner to file fresh applications before concerned authorities for his remaining grievances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case