^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCCNo ^-^-^ \2QQ8 (Arising out oforder dated 07712.05 passed by tius Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 35^/1994) 'PLICANT ^ ^-•""..•^" ^•' ..v- ^••••" NON APPLICANTS: ^^, ' ^^^.^ ^p-' ^v- c^-1 -y ^^^•.•^^•''•^^Ss^^ .-Smt. Chandrakala Das, W/oShriR.C. Das, aged about 46years, Craft Teacher/Upper Division Teacher (UDT), Resident of Houes No. 64/1, Palace Road, Jagdalpur. Cc-<<--> Versus 1< The State of M.P., Through the Secretary, Education Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal The Joint Director Public Instruetion, Education Bastar Division Bastar Jagdalpur. Bastar Shiksha Samiti, Througfa the Principal, Rashtriya Higher Secondary School, Jagdalpur. .,4. The Accounts OfGcer, Office of Director/Commissioner Public Instructions, Bhopal. 2. .y s!^%. APPLICATIONFOR RESTORATIONOF W.P No. 3575/1994 s®' HIGH COURTOF' CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. C.C. No. 206 of 2008 Snit. Chandrakala Das Versus The State ofM. P. & others AppUcalit Respondents APPLICATION FOE RESTORATION OFW.P. No. 3575/1994 (SB: Hon'bleShri Satish K. AgmliotriJ.) Shri Prafult Bbarat, Advocate for tbe appUcaat. SIiri Paakaj Sbnvastava, Paael Lawyer for the respondents No. 1, 2&4. None for the respondent No.3. O R D E R (orall (Passed onfhis 16th dayofDecember, 2009) Heard. The appUcant tvas filed fhis applieatiou for restoratiou of the Wri.tPetitionNo. 3575/1994 (Smt. Chandrakala Das Vs. The State of MP & ofhers), which was dismissed for waat of prosecution by orderdated 7.12.2005. As per fhe office report fhere is 840 days delay ia filing fhe appUcation for restoration offhewrit petition. The appUcant has ffled I.A.No.l for condonation of delay ia filuig the application for restoratioa. The ground for delay, as averred by fhe applicaut, is that after the matter was transferred to fhis Court, fhe petitioaer did not hear aaything firom fbe counsel, who was engaged ia the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. Thereafter, the petitioner couM not receive aay iuformation either fix)nl the couiisel or fi'om. the Court, though itwas later on found that the SPC was issued to the parties from the office of ttiis Gourt, which was never received. It was an obUgation of the Advocate, who after accepting the Vakalatnama acts and appears on behalf of the petitioner, to iaform the clientwifh regard toeifher transfer of the case or in case he has been desj^nated as seiiior couasel, to inake altemative an-ailgemeD.t. It appears fhat in the case on hand nothiagwas done. Vf!! 6. 8. Thalcur - -L. Notice was issued on the appUcation (I.A.No.l) for condonation of delay fo flie respondents on 23.6.2008. Despite several opportunities granted to fhe respondents no response has beeu filed tUl date. Having regard to the facts Situation of fhe case this Court is satisfied wifh. the explaaatiou ofFered by the petitioner for condonation of delay. Accordmgly, the applicatiou dated 30.4.2008 (I.A.No. 1) for condonatiou of delay ia filmg appUcation for restoration of the writ petition, is ordered, as prayed for. The delay is coudoned. Reasonable aud si.i£5cient cause has beeu. shown. The Writ Petition No. 3575/1994 may be restored to the original file, subject to pa}Tiient ofcost of Rs.500/-to the H^h Court Legal Aid eoiiuntttee, wittuna period oftwo weeks. In view of the above the appUcation is disposed of. A copy of fhis order niay be placed on record ia Writ Petition No. 3575f 1994 and fhe sam.e niay be Usted for hearing. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge