Prakash Rao Kumre v. State of Chhattisgarh

1 - Prakash Rao Kumre S/o Shri Prem Singh Kumre, Aged About 49 Years R/o Adarsh Nagar, Chamda Godown, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Sudesh Kumar Lala, S/o Horilal, Aged About 44 Years R/o Tendu Dipa, Ward No. 38, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) versus ... Appellants 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Urban Administration and Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - The Nazul Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - The Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Pankaj Agrawal, S/o Shri Late Omprakash Agrawal, Aged About 32 Years R/o Danipara, Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA KUMAR CHANDRA For Appellant For Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, AAG For Respondent No.4 For Respondent No.5 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate : None appears Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12 . 01 .202 6

None appears nor any representation is made on behalf of the 2 appellant to press this appeal on repeated calls. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for State / respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.4 and Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 / writ petitioner, are present.

By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellants, who were respondent No.s 5 & 6 in the writ petition, have challenged the impugned order dated 02.09.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No. 923 of 2020 (Pankaj Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ respondent No.5 herein has been allowed by the learned Single Judge.