IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C.No. ^^ of 2011 ^£i06 fOut ofWrit Petition No. 2543 of2005) APPLICANT PETITIONER !!'»» ^€^--nrr'^\ 'QS^-^'i^-V ITON-APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS ^hri B.N. Roy, S/o Late Ram Gopal Roy, aged about 64 years, Retd. Chief Goods Supervisor, Goods Freight Office, Bhilai, S.E. Rly., District-Durg (C.G.j. VERSUS ^ow^ 0?<-^~'<^ ^ ^\^\ •* j S.B. ^SBSJ! ) @ ] (fci '--s—r-e- '?•. ;• Union of India, Through : The Secretary, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. General Manager, South Eastern Central Railway, G.M. Office Bilaspur, Zone Bilaspur (C.G.) Chief Personnel Officer (Com.), South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur Zone, BUaspur (C.G.) Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, S.E.C. Railway, Raipur Division, Raipur (C.G.) APPLICATIQN FOR RESTQRATION OF ^aofe W.P. .No. 2543 ol 1 mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPLICANT PETITIONER NON-APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS M.C.C.No. 855 of 2011 Shri B.N.Roy. VERSU8 Union oflndia & Others. DB-.jIon'ble Shn SatLsh^ICAenihptri, Hon'ble ShrlRadheShyam Sharma,JJ. Present: Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the ^plicant. O RD E R itS (Passed on 14'" day ofDecember, 2011) lf-IZ-\l By this petition, the applicant seeks restoration ofW.P. No. 2543/2006 (Shri B.N.Roy v. Union oflndia & Others) which was dismissed for want ofprosecution on 03.07.2006 (Annexure A/l). There is a delay of about 1912 days in preferring this restoration application. Shri Agrawal, leamed senior counsel appearing with Smt. Jaiswal, Advocate for the applicant submits that the delay is bonafide as the counsel for the applicant could not intimate regarding the dismissal of the writ petition well in time. The counsel came to know regarding the dismissal of the writ petition on an enquiry being made by him on 17.10.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for a certified copy of fhe order dated 03.07.2006 (Annexure A/l) on 17.10.2011 itself and the restoration application was filed before this Court on 02.11.2011. The applicant has also filed I.A. No. 1, application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. The applicant has not offered any cogent reasons for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. Thus, it appears that the applicant himself is not interested in pursuing his petition and after such a belated stage, prays for restoration ofthe writ petition, which was dismissed for want ofprosecution. ^'^^^",----^ •.--^. ^\a 5. A Division Bench ofthis Court, in A.Sriniwas Rao & Others v. Union oflndia & Others , while deciding a similar issue, observed as under: "9. Law helps the diligent not indolent person' is often quoted and reiterated prmciple to highlight the rationale behind the law of limitation. There is no need for us to add cause law in that regard. .Law reports contain abundant instances. Although it is said that a person who approaches Tribunal/Fonun after the limitation prescribed by the statute has to explain each day's delay to the satisfaction of the Court or Tribunal, as the case may be, even practicing liberalism in the peculiar facts and circumstances ofthis case, we do not find any explanation much s.atisfactory explanation to constitute a 'sufficient cause' to condone the enormous delay of 4 year 3 months and 3 days..." 6. The Supreme Court in Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. M. Prabhakar and Others , referring and considering Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd , Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Court , Maharashtra SRTC v. Bahvant Regular Motor Service , Amrit Lal Berry v. CCE , State of Maharashtra v. Digambar , Shiv Dass v. Union oflndia, State ofM.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal and Dehri Rohtas Light Raibvay Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur , held as under: "54. The relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches should be put against a person who approaches the writ court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution is now well settled. ; They are: (1) There is no .inviolable mle of law that whenever there is a delay, the Court must necessarily refase to entertain fhe petition; it is a mle of practice based on sound * 2006(3) CGLJ 528 2 (2011) 5 SCC 607 3(1874)LR5PC221 4 AIR 1967 SC 1450 5 AIR 1969 SC 329 6 (1975) 4 SCC 7.14 7(1995)4SCC^683 8 (2007) 9 SCC 168 (1986) 4 SCC 566 (1992)28cc 598 10 tu ,fs-^&~~ /] @^ ^l. I ^s^li 1 ^wy \^) 5. A Division Bench ofthis Court, in A.Sriniwas Rao & Others v. Union oflndia & Others , while deciding a similar issue, observed as under: "9. Law helps the diligent not indolent person' is often quoted and reiterated principle to highlight the rationale behind the law of limitation. There is no need for us to add cause law in that regard'. Law reports contain abundant instances. Although it is said that a person who approaches Tribunal/Forum after the limitation prescribed by the statute has to explain each day's delay to the satisfaction of the Court or Tribunal, as the case may be, even praeticing liberalism in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find aay explanation much satisfactory explanation to constitute a 'sufficient cause' to condone the enormous delay of 4 year 3 months and 3 days...." 6. The Supreme Court in Shankara Cooperative Howing Society Limited v. M. Prabhakar and Others , referring and considering Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd , Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Court , Maharashtra SRTC v. Bahvant Regular Motor Service , Amrit Lal Berry v. CCE , State of Maharashtra v. Digambar , Shiv Dass v. Union oflndia, State ofM.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswaf and Dehri Rohtas Light Raihvay Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur , held as under: "54. The relevant considerations, in determining whether dclay or laches should be put against a person who approaches the writ court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution is now well settled. They are: (1) There is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay,. the Court must necessarily refuse.to entertain the petition; it is a mle of practice based on sound ' 2006(3) CGLJ 528 2 (2011) 5 SCC 607 3(1874)LR5PC221 4 AIR 1967 SC 1450 5 Affi. 1969 SC 329 'i(1975)4SFC714 7 (1995) 4 SCC 683 8 (2007) 9 SCC 168^ 9 (1986) 4 SCC 566 (1992) 2 SCC 598 ^ttsi^ I J / V^ 7. 8. and proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its own facts. (2) The principle on which the Court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accmed to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part ofthe petitioners. (3) The satisfactory way of explaming delay in making an application under Article 226 is for the petitioner to show that he had been seeking relief elsewhere in a manner provided by law. If he runs after a remedy not provided in the statute or the statutory rules, it is not desirable for the High Court to condone the delay. It is immaterial what the petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy. (4) No hard-and-fast mle, can be laid down in this regard. Every case shall have to be decided on its own facts. (5) That representations would not be adequate explanation to take care ofthe delay." The applicant herein has not offered any satisfactory explanation for such an inordinate delay of 1912 days. . -In view of the foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the application for condoqation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the application for restoration ofthe writ petition also stands dismissed. ashok. Sd/- Satish K.A.gnihotri Judge ^ Sd/- Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge r