IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 ~^~ M.C.C. N0.——^^-——/2007 Petitioner RESPQNDENTS Budhwar Singh S/o Bal sai Gond Aged- about 50 yrs. R/o village-Bamhanikhurd, P.O.-Chaitama, TahsU-Pali, Distt.-Kota [C.G.] VERSUS 1-Ministry of Madhya Pradesh govt. Land Revenue Departraent, Bhopal. 2.Additional Comraissioner, Bilaspur division, Bilaspur 3.S.D.O. Katghora 4.Secratry Chhattisgarh govt. Raipur 5.8nit. Nira Bai d/o Palbhawan Singh aged- about 45 years 6.Smt. Dharam Kunwar widow of Palbhawan Singh aged-about 45 years R/o village- Nawapara, tahsil-Pali, Distt.-Korba [C.G.] 7.Ramsharan Singh S/o Harbhajan Singh aged-about 55 years R/o Bamhanikhurd, tah.- Pali, Distt-Korba [C.G.] APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION QFW.P.NO. 32^/2001 The above named petitiqnerjrn^stiu^mlAr-^"J ^^m'M^s HI^ COURT 0s CHHATnSfiWH AT 8ILASPUR M.C.C. No. 75 of 2007 Sjngte Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sotish K. Agnjhotri, J. Petitioner Respondents Vcrsys Budhwar Singh Ministry of ArWhya Pradesh government and others R^^sents Mr. Sanjcy Patel, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lo^yer for the State. OftDER (Passed on 23rd Day of February, 2007) Thi3 is an application for restoration of originai Writ Petition No. 325/2001. This petition came-up for hearir^ before this Court on 9-8-2002. This Court passed the folbwir^ order:- "The dcfects, as pointed out by the office note dated 12-3-2W1 <S ^ 23-4-2CX)! be rectified on or- before 26-8-2CX)2, f<rilin9 which this writ petition shall stands djsmis5€d for mn-compliance without further reference to the Bench." A 2, Th©petitioner did not do any-thing as such, the petition WGS dismissed for want of prosecution. After dismissal of the petition, the petitioner remained tardy <rid indolent and did not take any action for a period of about 1600 deys. Now/ the petitfoner hcs filed an applicatjon for condonation of delay. The opplicatjon for condonotion of delay does not disclose or^ reason which prevented the petitioner from taking any step in filing the appiication for restorotjon of the original writ petition. ^° 3. Thus, application for condonation of delay does not disclase sufficient reason for condonation of deloy. 4. TTie said appiication is dismissed. Consequently, 1+ie M.C.C. is also dismissed. No order as to costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Subhash