c. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) .^^l^ M.C.C. No. /2Q08^ (Arising out ofWrit Petition No. 1743/02) APPLICANT PETITIONER \j&s ^•!';>v y'^. NON-APPLICANT Respondents Sanjay Kumar Chopra, S/o Late Shri Umed Chand Chopra,^r^^u^- Occupation-Mining Business, R/o ^1<^1 ..^•"?"^.t^"v Sadar Bajar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ..-;;: .^^^^"' VERSUS 2. 3. 4. State of C.G. through the Secretary Mineral Resources Department, Mantralaya, D. K. Bhavan, Raipur The Collector, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) The Mining Officer, Rajnandgaon t L Ramesh Kumar Dakaliya, S/o Jeevan Chand Dakalia, Contractor, Shahdeor^^ - Nagar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) KL^^O' 5. The Government Of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Steel & Mines, Department of Mines, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi. APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF WRIT PETITION N0.1743/02 The applicant above named respectfully begs to submit as under: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C. No. 14 of2010 APPLICANT PETITIONER Sanjay Kumar Chopra. VERSUS StateofC.G.&Others. NON-APPLICANTS : RESPONDENTS APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OFWRIT PETITOIN N0. 1743/02 SB: Hpn'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/non-applicant No. 1 to 3. Shri V.K.Sharma, Advocate for the non-applicant No. 4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 04th day of'March, 2011) 1. By this petition, the applicant seeks restoration of Writ Petition No. 1743/2002 (Sanjay Kumar Chopra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 12.01.2009. 2. On 15.02.2010, notices were issued to the non-applicants on I.A. No. 1, application fbr condonation of delay in filing the restoration application^ as the restoration petition was barred by limitation of 331 days. 3. On perusal ofthe application for condonation of delay, the reason assigned for delay in filing the restoration does not appear to be satisfactory. Further, in reply, the non-applicant No. 4 submits that there is no explanation for each day asto why the restoration application was filed belatedly. 4. Reasons given in the instant application are contrary to the facts, Ss. the certified copy ofthe order dated 12.01.2009, passed in W.P. No. 1743/2002 was supplied to the petitioner on 14.05.2009. Thereafter, the applicant took about seven months time in filing the w ^Sti^?. ^ I 1 ^..^// .-•^!y •-^^.,'::.,-..^~$v:'"- restoration application without explaining the inordinate delay by assigning sufficient and cogent reasons. Even in the petition for restoration ofthe writ petition, the reason assigned by the applicant is also not cogent, as the applicant has submitted that since the earlier counsel was designated as Senior counsel, and his name could not come in the cause list, therefore, none appeared on behalf of the applicant. The further reason that when the present counsel attempted to move an application for urgent hearing ofthe case, at that point oftime, he came to know about dismissal of the writ petition. The conduct of the applicant itself shows that he was indolent and lethargic and further, not interested in prosecuting the writ petition. Even after dismissal of the writ petition for want of prosecution, the applicant has taken more than 331 days in filing the restoration application. The law on the principle ofwaiver and acquiescence is well settled that, if the person sleeps over his rights and is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, he may not be entitled to the same relief as was granted to other vigilant persons. The petitioner was not vigilant in prosecution his writ petition, which resulted into dismissal for want of prosecution. Thereafter, again, the restoration application has been filed much belatedly without any satisfactory explanation. (See: Chandra Bhushan and another vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Uttar Pradesh (Regional) Luckno^ and Others[, Rabindranath Bose and Others w. The Union oflndia and Others Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar [ AIR 1967 SC 1272 ~;^^^~^. ^•y ~ ,^""";': ,^; ,^:.,': -<%%. 1: ^^-:'.,...,.^'^^ 7. and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others State o/MP. vs. Nandlal, U.P. Jal Nigam and another w. Jashwant Singh and another4, State ofPunjab and another vs. Balkaran Singh5 Yunus (Baboobhai) A Hamid Padvekar v. State of Maharashtra6, Tridip Kumar Dingal and others Vs. State ofWest Bengal and others and <S'.<S'. Balu andAnother v. State ofKerala and Qthers8). This Court in Smt. Shashibala Gandhrala vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others9 on 3-1-2007 observed that ^the cause ofaction arose on 6-6-1995, ^vhen the communication ^as sent by the State Government to the authorities for grant ofrevisedpay-scale. The petitioner has not taken any steps ever since till these petitions -were filed in December, 2006 and remained tardy and indolent This belated approach would certainly cause hardship and inconvenience to other side" 8. Applying well settled principles of law to the facts ofthe case on hand as the petitioner has not offered any satisfactory explanation at all for condonation of inordinate delay and laches in approaching this Court for filing the application for restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed for want ofprosecution, the application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application is dismissed. 9. Consequently, M.C.C. No 14/2010, for restoration of W.P. No. 1743/2002, is also dismissed. ^——— g^/_ SatishK.Agnihotri Judge : (1974)13cc 317 3(AIR1987SC251) 4 (2006) 11SCC 464 5 (2006) 12 SCC 709 6 (JT 2009(3)8c 487) 7(2009)1SCC768) 8 (2009) 2 SCC 479 9 WP (S)No.7222 of2006