BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.c.c. No. f; b - 2009 In w.P.(S) No. 2W2 / 2005 (Dismissed on default as per order dated 28/04/2008) 000w 000% APPLICANT : Ramesh Kumar Chaubey /, S/o Late Shrl ChaturbhuJ ,y“ Chaubey, Aged about 64 Years, Up Jlla Vistar Awam Sadhan Adhlkarl, F/6 Naya Hospital Parisar, Indira Nagar, Rajnandgaon, (M.P) (Now C.G.) (Petitioner Retired from Service) VERSUS -PLICANTS: 1 State of M P d f” Through R.R. Sahu if” Jila Vistar awam Sadhan Adhikari, Mukhya Chikitsa, awam Swasthya Adhikari Karyalaya Jabalpur (M.P.) (Respondent Retired from Service) “Lu WWWWWMWWWWWW$WWIWWWWmmmmmmmwmmmm NON AP ?“ Secretary/Commissioner, Lok Swasthya awam Pariwar Kalyan M.P. Shasan Bhopal. ( Now State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Department of Health & Family welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur, C.G.) v2. Teerthraj Tripathi, Jila Vistar awam Sadhan Adhikari, Mukhya Chikitsa, awam Swasthya Adhikari Karyalaya , Post- Riwa (M.P.) (Respondent Retired from Service) 4,, T.P. Singh, / Jila Vistar awam Madhyam Adhikari Karyalaya, Mukhya Chikitsa Adhikari, Karlaya, Shahdol (M.P.) (Respondent Retired from Service) WW” APPLICATION FOR R%STORATION OF THE CASE W NON—APPLICANTS : State of M.P. (NOW State of C.G.) & Others. APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF W.P.(S) NO.2912/2005. SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: 2 } HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C. No. 533 of 2009 APPLICANT : Ramesh Kumar Chaubey VERSUS Shri Satyendra Sahu, Advocate for the applicant. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 22nd day of September, 2010) The applicant has med the instant application for restoration of Writ Petition (S) No. 2912/2005, which was dismissed for want of prosecution in view of the order dated 28.4.2008. The instant application for restoration was flied on 26.11.2009, which is barred by limitation of 540 days, The applicant has also filed l.A. No. 1 for condonation of delay in tiling the restoration application The applicant has not offered any cogent reasons for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. It is stated in the application that the matter was dismissed for want of prosecution on 5.5.2008, which was not informed to the petitioner in time. Thus, there was a delay of 540 days. The petitioner has not stated asto when he was informed about dismissal of the case and further what steps he has taken after information to file the present application for restoration of the petition. Thus, it appears that the applicant himself was not interested in pursuing his petition and after such a belated stage, filed application for restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. m, k w , v‘ w ‘ wrm 22 5. A Division Bench of this Court, in A.Sriniwas Rao & Others v. Union oflndia & Others’ , while deciding a similar issue, observed as under: “9. Law heips the diligent not indolent person’ is often quoted and reiterated {D principle to highlight the rationale behind the law of limitation. There is no need for us to add cause law in that regard. Law reports contain abundant instances. Although it is said that a person who approaches Tribunal/Forum after the limitation prescribed by the statute has to explain each day’s delay to the satisfaction of the Court or ribunal, as the case may be, even practicing leralism in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any explanation much satisfactory explanation to constitute a ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the enormous delay of4 year 3 months and 3 days...” 6. This Court, in Chain Singh Pendre v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others2, relying on decisions of the Supreme Court, i S.S.Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, C.Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining & Anr., R.N.Bose v. Union of India, State of MP. v. Nand/ai, U.P.Jal Nigam & another v. Jashwant Singh & another, State of Punjab & another v. Balkaran Singh, Tridip Kumar Dingal & Others v. State of West Benga/ & Others, Yunus (Baboobhai ) A. Hamid Padvekar v. State of Maharashtra, held that no relief can be given to a person who witht any reasonable explanation approaches the Court after inordinate delay. 7. In view of the foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, te application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the application for restoration of the writ petition also stands dismissed. Sdi- Satish K. Agnittotri Judge ashok 1 2006(3) CGLJ 528 2 2009(2) ccLJ 377 T ib n ou h