,HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISQAmi AT BELASPUR SE ; HON?BLE SHRI JUSTICB PmTIMK.BR DIWAKER W.P. 12271 N0. 400S/2008 PETITIONB'R Dharain Das, S/'o. Ghasiya, aged about 59 years, Cast Panika, r/o. Village Bhata, Tahsil Lomu, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) Verssis R.BSPONDBKTS 1. ViUage Pao.chayat Bhata, Through Saq3ao.ch, Village Bhata, Talisil Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) 2. State of Cmiattisgarh, Through CoUector, Bilaspur WR1T PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 22T 0V THE COHSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearanee: Shri Heinaiit Gupta, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Vaibhav Goveidhan, Panel Law}7er for tSie State. ORALQRDER (04.05.2009) With tlie consent of fhe parties, the matter is heard linaily. This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitiition of India aiid challenge in the writ petition is to the order dated 7.08.2007 (Annexure P/1) by which the appMcation as fsled by tlie petitioner for restoration of fhe appeal has been dismissed, Contention of fhe couusel for the petitioner is that he was uot aware about tiie fact of disiciissal of the appeal aad therefore, he could not approach tlie Board of Revenue at tlie eai'lier pomt of time. He faifher submits that when tlie . appealwas Msted before the Board ofRevenue, tiie petitioner could not appear as he was sick. On tlie otlier hand, supportiag the order iiupugned, counsel for tiie State subinits th.at the petitioner himsetfwas appeariiig before the Board of Revenue aad fherefore there was no occasion for tlie counsel to iafonn the saine to the petitioner, He also subinits fhat the restoratiou application was filed after two years of fhe disniissal of fhe appeal aod th.at application was even not supported by appMcation for condonation ofdelay. I have heard counsel for Uie respective parties, The Board of Revenzie has passed the order impugned stdctly ia accordaace with law. When fhe petitioner hioiself was appeamig befox'e the Board of Revenue, there was uo occasion for th.e counsel to iaform tiie petitioner regardnig the date of the case. Furthermore, ui respect of sickness, fhere was no inedical certificate aad no affidavit filed by the petitioner ia tlus behatf, Even fhe petitioner did not bother to file application under Section 5 ofthe Limitatioii Act There is no eiTor apparent on the tace of record to niteriere with fhe reasoned orders passed by the Board of Revenue. The petition has no substaace ao-d is accordiagly disniissed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge