IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C.NO. ^3S" /2010 Pf?. 2.(2i.1^/^0(0 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS 1. R.K. Jain, aged about 47 years, S/o Shri R.C. Jain, Senior Foreman, NTPC, R/o B-1353, Jamnipali, Korba, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) 2. B.S. Bhuller, aged about 45 years, S/o. Late J.S. Bhuller, Senior Foreman, NTPC, R/o B-1572, Jamnipali, Korba, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1. National Thermal Power Corporation, through: general Manager, Vikas Nagar, NTPC, Jamnipali, Korba, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) 2. Executive Director (western region), Headquarters Samruddhi Trade Centre, 2nd Floor, MIDC, Marol, Andheri (Hast), Mumbai 400-093 3. Head of the department, Mechanical & Maintenance, NTPC, Jainnipali, Korba, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) yr^^\ I 1 Fl KA' \ ® HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS M.C.C.No. 595 of 2010 R.K.Jain & Another. VERSUS National Thermal Power Coq^oration & Others. APPLICATIONFORRESTORATION OF W.P. No. 1439/2002 SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J^ Present: Shri Shrijith C.S.Nair, Advocate for the petitioners. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 12th day ofJuly, 2011) I.A.NO. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. I. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on account of the peremptory order passed by this court on 04.05.2009, wherein three weeks time was granted to the petitioners to make good the default as pointed out by the office. However, the default could not be removed within the stipulated time, thus, the petition was dismissed. 2. ShriNair further submits that due to theinadvertent mistake ofthe clerk of the counsel of the petitioners, the default could not be removed and the petition stood dismissed w.e.f. 12.05.2009. 3. On perusal of the application for condonation of delay, the reason assigned for delay in filing the restoration, does not appear to be satisfactory. There is no explanation at all for such a long delay of 443 days in filing this restoration application belatedly except that the petitioners waited for listing ofthe petition and when the same ^sSfc. 'fc ;^-r^,^ \[A ';t:.. "^y 2 was not listed, the counsel approached the Registry wherciii hc came to know that the petition was already dismissed. The conduct ofthe petitioners itselfshows that he was indolent and lethargic and further, not interested in prosecuting the writ pelitioii. Even after dismissal ofthe writ petition, the petitioners liave tal'.en more than 443 days in filing the restoration application. T'he law on ttie principle ofwaiver and aGquiescence is well scttled that, ifthe person sleeps over his rights and is not vigilant ol'his rights and acquiesces with the situation, he may not be entitled to the same relief as was granted to other vigilant persons. Thc petitioner was not vigilant in prosecuting his writ petition, whiGli resulted into dismissal for want of prosecution on account ol noii- removal of the default. Thereafter, again, the restoralioii application has been filed much belatedly without any satisl'iiuldry explanation. (See: Chandra Bhushan and another vs. The Depuly Director of Consolidation, Uttar Pradesh (Regional) Luckmw and Others , Rabindranath Bose and Others vs. The Union oflndia aiici Others Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and others vs. The Stale oj Maharashtra and others State of M.P. vs. Nandlal , U.P. Jal Nigam and another vs. Jashwant Singh and another , Slale oj Punjab and another vs. Balkaran Singh Yunus (Bahoobhai) A Hamid Padvekar v. State of Maharashtra , Tridip Kwnur Dingal ' AIK 1967.SC 1272 ;! (197-1) I SCC317 '(AI'R 1987 SC 251) ' (2006) 11 SCC 464 ' (20(16) 12 SCC 709 "(JT 2009 (-t)SC 487) and others Vs. State of West Bengal and others and S.S. Bcilu iiriil Another v. State ofKerala and Others ). This Court in Smt. Shashibala Gandhrala vs. State ofChhatliftffarli & Others on 3-1-2007 observed that "the cause ofaction arose on 6-6-1995, -when the communication -was sent by the Slale Government to the authorities for grant ofrevised pay-scalv. The petitioner has not taken any steps ever since till these pelilions were filed in December, 2006 and remained tardy and indolenl. This belated approach v/ould certainly cause harcl'ihip aiul inconvenience to other side." Applying well settled principles oflaw to the facts ofthe cyse on hand as the petitioners have not offered any explanation at all for condonation of inordinate delay and laches in approachiiig Ihis Court for filing the application for restoration ofthe writ pelilioii, the application for condonation of delay in filing lliu rcslorHliuii application is dismissed. Consequently, M.C.C. also stands dismissed. _______ Sd,'- Satish K. Agnilwtn Judge