SUDHIR KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPS/6798/2022

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

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010332082022

Filing Number

WPS/17879/2022

Filing Date

13-Oct-2022

Registration No

WPS/6798/2022

Registration Date

17-Oct-2022

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

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS. ( 606 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

13-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 22-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUDHIR KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

    Adv. PAWAN SHRIVASTAVA,Pushkar Sinha,Pushkar Sinha, ,Pushkar Sinha

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.Director General of Police

  3. 3.Inspector General of Police

  4. 4.Deputy Inspector General Of Police / Senior

  5. 5.Additional Superintendent of Police

  6. 6.Rohit Jha

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan PandeyView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed Writ Petition No. 6798 of 2022 filed by Sub Inspector Sudhir Kumar Shrivastava as infructuous (rendered moot by efflux of time). The petitioner had sought documents for his departmental inquiry defense, but the court found the petition no longer viable for adjudication due to the passage of time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 31-Oct-2022

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem SahuView PDF

  4. 18-Oct-2022

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

  5. 13-Oct-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPS/6798/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed Writ Petition No. 6798 of 2022 filed by Sub Inspector Sudhir Kumar Shrivastava as infructuous (rendered moot by efflux of time). The petitioner had sought documents for his departmental inquiry defense, but the court found the petition no longer viable for adjudication due to the passage of time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case