‘HON’BLE SH RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL UMAR SINHA, J. smi w A Shar g 0 Chand Malu (Jain) S/o APPELLANT (Petitioer) Shri Bhikham Jain, age about 51 years, resident of Mahasamund, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.) Versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, department of Urban and Rura! Development, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Colteotor,.Mahasamund, District Mahaeamud (C.G.) 3. The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Prishad, Mahasamund (C.G.) Memo of Writ Appeal under Rule 157(10) read with Section 2H} at the appeal t0 the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisqarh Rules2005 @resent: Shri Rekhraj Baghel, counsel for theaappellant.’ Shri $umesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate .for the Statel respondents No. 1 and 2. Judqment (315‘ July, zoos) The following iudgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. We This matter is listed today for orders on the appellant’s default in not tiling an appropriate application for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: RI K Writ Appeal (PR; No. 2580 or zoos ” ‘a‘ 9’ n d RESPONDENTS n 2L» 2. The writ appea! filed by the appenant on 30.04.2008 against the impugned order dated 05.02.2008, passed in W.P.C. N0.716/2008, is reported to be time-barred by as many as 37 days. No application for condonation of delay in tiling the writ appeai was filed along with the appeal. ln fact,‘ no such application has been tiled till date though a period of three months has elapsed since tiling of the appeal and inspite of grant “a of opportunities in that behalf by the Additional Registrar (Judicial) vide orders dated 05.05.2008, 19.06.2008 & 23062008. . 3. In this view of the matter, we do not find any justification in the prayer of learned counsel for the appellant for grant of more time for tiling an appropriate application for condonation of delay in tiling the appeal. The prayer, therefore, is rejected. 4. As the appellant has miserably failed in showing any cause much less sufficient cause for the delay of 37 days in filing the writ appeal, we are left with no other option, but to dismiss the writ appeal, as time-barred. 5. The writ appeal, therefore, is dismissed as time-barred. #J . , sd/- ’ sd/— t Chief Justice, Sunil Kumar Sinhf‘, Judge r2. 7.," I‘I /