ASHOK KUMAR NAPIT vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPS/4682/2021

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 13th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010211922021

Filing Number

WPS/11354/2021

Filing Date

17-Aug-2021

Registration No

WPS/4682/2021

Registration Date

26-Aug-2021

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SERVICE MATTERS ( 6 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS AND MIXED BAG ONES ( 630 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

13-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 22-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ASHOK KUMAR NAPIT

    Adv. Ram Vifal Ram Rajwade,Sukhnath Sai Painkra,Sukhnath Sai Painkra, ,Savita Rajwade,Sukhnath Sai Painkra

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.The Director

  3. 3.The Managing Director

  4. 4.The Collector

  5. 5.The District Education Officer

  6. 6.Block Education Officer

  7. 7.Dev Prasad Paikra

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan PandeyView PDF

    The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed Ashok Kumar Napit's writ petition (WPS No. 4682 of 2021) as infructuous, finding that by efflux of time the petition had lost its purpose and no longer required adjudication. The court accepted the petitioner's own counsel's submission regarding the efflux of time, making the relief sought no longer viable or necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Nov-2021

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

  4. 06-Sep-2021

    Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam KoshyView PDF

  5. 06-Sep-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 17-Aug-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPS/4682/2021

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed Ashok Kumar Napit's writ petition (WPS No. 4682 of 2021) as infructuous, finding that by efflux of time the petition had lost its purpose and no longer required adjudication. The court accepted the petitioner's own counsel's submission regarding the efflux of time, making the relief sought no longer viable or necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case