•^1. ^•A'c.6 > fcd-^ ^(.^^K&^ ^^^}^rr ^ys^ ,&es*~ ..-••" i-(®'-". ....-"- ,\..>**' •;^^~/ IN THE_HIGH_CQURTQFCHHATTIS.GARH_ATBILASPUR WRLTPET3TIQN_{S1_NQ. _S6^ _OF2Q09 •at'' PETITIONER '' K.M. Khare S/o Shri C.B. Khare Aged about 63 years, R/o House A/l, 25 Bunglow Colony, Behind Gazebo Hotel, Vyapar Vihar Road, BilaspurfC.G.) Bl VERSUS RESPONDENTS < I. ^2. State-of Chhattisgarh, Tbrough the Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Engineer-in-Chief, o?: Water Resources Department, State ofChhattisgaFh, Civil Lines,.Raipur (C.G.) State of Madhya Pradesh, Through the Principal Secretary, Water Respurces Department, Mantralaya, Bhopal (M.P.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICL^ 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION GF INDIA .f.{. mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S} No. 3639 of2009 PETmONER RESPONDENTS K.M.Khare. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WMT PETITION UNDER ARTIGLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: ShriP.S.Koshy, Advocate wifh Shri Vijay Krishna Rao Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioaer. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondents 1 & 2. ORALORDER (Passed on Q6tn day of January, 2010) . 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the identical grounds for the same reliefwhich was agitated in W.P.(S) No. 6592/2006. The said petition was dismissed on 4.12.2006 by a co-ordinate Bench ofthis Court holding fhat the order dated 29.5.2009 (Annexure P/7, impugned therein) was an appellable order and the petition i.e. W.P.(8) No.6592/2006 was fded without taking recourse to appeal. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appropriate authority in accordanee with law and after disposal ofthe said appeal, if exigency arises, he may approach the Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India. The said order was passed after hearing the A». 2. petrtioner. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed on the ground ofdelay on 13.4.2007 (Annexure P/2). Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred another writ petition beiiig W.P.(S) No. 3749/2007. The petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 12.07.2007. Thereagamst, the petitioner preferred M.C.C. No 410/2008 seeking restoration ofthe W.P.(S)No. 3749/2007 to its original number. The .j:. .tffss y:' at^iei^-iOTrtBaafBfia(u<u(nnaaiE?iS <=a'.Bi^ieea^&!tg^>86£;;-;: said application was also dismissed on 24.03.2009 on the yound of unexplamed and inordmate delay of 484 days. The petitioner has filed fhe present writ petition for thesame relief on the sanie gyounds as soughtforin earlier writ petition, i.e. W.P.(S)No. 3749 of2007, 3. Once the application for restoration was dismissed on the g-ound of unexplained delay and laches, the present writ petition is not maintainable as the reliefsought for and fhe grounds raised in the earlier wrif petitipn which was dismissed for want of prosecution and in the instant petition are same. The petitioner has chosen not to file any appeal pursuant to the order dated 24.03.2009, aiid as such, the same has attained finality. Thus, this petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. ^-si^-^---?-J-?'""' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge jte*'.. //" wasssws^SHXs^