f ..^.^.^^^..A.-.^.; ^ ic^' ^ $)c '%> •oy" HIGIJCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Wrjt Petition IC} No. 705 of 2008 Petitioners/ A^peltaiits 1) Anii Chhugaini, S/o. Late Shri Ram Chand Chhugani. aged about 33 years. 2) Vishai Chhugani, S/o. Late Shri Ram Chand Chhuganl, aged about 29 years. 3) Jyoti Chhugani, D/o. Late Shri Ram Chand Chhugani, aged about 31 years. 4) Smt. Mansi Chhugani, W/o. Anii Chhugani, aged about 30 myears, 5) Smt. Preeti Chhugani, W/o. Vishat Chhugani, aged about 27 years. 6) Ku. Bhoomi Chhugani, D/o. Anii Chhugani, aged about 4 years, through naturat guardian father Anii Chhugani, Ait the petitioners/appeltants are the residents of A-24, Gayatri Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (CG), Respondents Versys 1) Municipai Corporation, Raipur, through Commissioner, Office of the Municjpal Corporation, in front of Head Poat OfRce, Raipur (CG). 2) M/s. Chhugani Buitders, 61-62 Farishta Comptex, G.E. Road, Raipur (CG). (Writ Petition underArticie 227 ofthe Constitution of Indla) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present Shri S.K. Verma, counse! for the petitioners. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 4th February %108) Learned counsel appearing for the p^itioners submite that the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 4-10-2005 passed in favour of the respondent No.2, filed an appeai before the District Judge, Raipur, on 10-1-2008 betatedty after a period of 828 days. Raju ^ _ 2) Provisions of Section 30 (3) of Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh read with S^tion 293 (3) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 provide for appeat against th@ order passed by the Municipal Corporation to the District Judg@, wthin a iimitation period of 30 days. The petitioners have fiied the appeal after 828 days. The application for condonation of deiay fiied before the District Judge, does not expiain the detay ^ required under the provisions of law, except that the petitioners came to know about the order on 3-9-2007. Even if the timitation is counted from 3-9-2007, the petitioners ought to have fiied an appea! before 2-10-2007. The petitionere, thereafter, again waited more than about 3 months to file an appeal. From the impugned order, it appears that the appeat is delayed by 828 days. No sufficient cause has been shown and there is no error in the order passed by the tearned District Judge, dismissing the appeal on the ground of detay. The petitioners have not made out case for interference with the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge. 3) The petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly* Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1