HI6H eOURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBU^SPim 8B : HOM'BLE SHRI JU8TICE PRITIMKER DIWAKBR r W.P. (2271 N®.632/2008 PETI'nOWBRS APPELLANT M/s Chaudhaiy Elcctroiuc & Compaoy, TIirough it's Rroprietor Shri Subhash Chandra Jain, Late Sbri Miuinalal Jaia, aged about 51 years, SIiiv Talkies Chowk, Bilaspur Chliattisgarh M/s. Shaktixiian Pump RBSPQMIffiBTS Versus 1. . )• Industries, TIsrough its proprietor Shri Rahul Kumar Jajn, Son of Sutohash Clia.adra. tJ.ain, adult, Shiv Talkies Ghowk, Bilaspur Clihattisgarh. Chliattisgarh State EIectricity Boapd, Throagh fhe Superintendcnt Engiaeer, City Division, CSEB, Bflaspiir, CIihattisgarh 2. Electricity Oiabudsinan, fVidyut Lokpa^, Chhafdsgarh State, Chhattisgarh State Efcctricity Board Campus, Gudiyari, Raipur, Chliattisgarh °SS ^ss.. WRIT PBTI-nON XUIDER ARTKa.E 227 OPn txsfiswimntwewmDiA ^iBeatance; Shri Ainrito Das, colmsel for the petitioneis. Shri Surul Otcpaai, co'tmsel for respondcD.t No. t. ORAI.QRDBR (27.04.2009) !| i With the consent of tbe parties, fhe matter is heard finalty. • ' •2^C^^-ll Lib^fffSsi'Br .^: 1 ii jy.- ChaUenge ia the prcsent petition is to the order dated 22.12.2007 passed by respoDdent No.2 whereby the appeal as filed by fhe petitioners has been rejected on the short ground ofdelay. Leamed coiiasel for the petitiDner fairly submite that the appeal was barred by ten days. However, he submits that a separate appUcation for condonation of delay was filed before fhe respoadent No.2 ass^iung siifficient cause for filing the appeal with delay. He furtfacr submits that if fhe delay is not condoned aad fhe appeal is not decided on luerits, the petitioners wffl suffer an irreparable loss because the Substaatial right of the petittoners wffl go undecided. Accordiug to him, the law wifh regard to the eondonation of delay has to be taken VberaSy if sufBcient cause has been ass^ned. Leamed coiinsel for the respoadent No. l, supportfng tbeorder impi^ned subinits that fhe order has been passed stricfty iu accordance with law and there 1s no iUegatity in ttie order impugned. I have heard coutisel for the respective parties and pcrused fhe order impugned. In fheir applieation, fhe petitioners have assigaed sufGcicnt causc for the condonadon of delay. In the lai^er mterest of justue, fhe delay in filiag the appeal is condoned and fhe icspondent No.2 is directed to decMe tfae appeal on nierits stricfly ia accordance with law. 'It is being inade clear that fhis Court has not expressed aay opinion upon the laerits ofthe case aud the resp. No.2 would be at Hberty to decide the case on its owa merits without beiag influeneed by this Court. In ftie result, the petition sueceeds. ^^--''' .-^'- '.^€^ 1c^^ y ^ ^ ^^ ^l ^—^^g^S *[^-S—-g