•%!» KS ^ IN TH|T|IIGH COOR'I^DF eHHATTI^SyRH A^^ILASPUR PETITliONER ^ M.C.C. No. I\ ?/20Q4 4? t^ BivisfenBen RESPONDiENTS Ram Tej Tiwa^ N';.''•".''-'.•^^ VERSUS f 1 .i " '~ ^'•:^ ••:. ^. ••• .. ; '-. State of Chhattisgarh fiEOthers. RESTORATIOW OF WRIf PETITION ^ DISMISSED IN DEFAULT DUE TOll^N-PAY^ WITHIN 15 DAYS. ,i' :^ T-'U ,1 c A. HIGH CQURT OF GHHATT18QAIW AT BtLASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coraml : HON^BLB SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. PETn'IONER RESPONDENTS: M.C.C.No.11of2004 Ram Tej Tiwari Versus Stete ©fCWiattisgarh & othem. RESTORATIONOF WRIT PETmON N0.583/2083 Present: Shri Sunjl 3ahu, leamed counset for the petttjoner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate tor respondents No. 1,2 and 3. ith ORDER (24mSeptember,2008) The following order of the Gourt was passed by Rajeev Qupta, C.J.: Leamed cottnsel for the parttes are heard on restorsrtton petition. 2) The petjtioner is seekir^i restoration ©f W.P. No.583/2003,whteh carT^to be dismissed for non-compllance ofthe orderdated 17.12.2003. 3) The petitioner vide order dated 17.12.2003 was cBrectect to make good the default within 1 5 days subject to the c<^l of Rs.50/- payable to the High Court Bar Associatton failing wNcM; the petitlon shall automatically stands dismlssed wjthoot referenee t@th®Bench; 4) Shri Sun'rt Sahu, learned counsel for the petttionersutemits that the cost of Rs.50/-, though could not be deposita* withhi stiputated period, was infect deposited on 16th day i.e. 02.01.2004. njmmi ^ "^ •-, ^ ^^- 5) On due consideration, M.C.G. No.1 1/2004 is allowed and W.P. No.583/2003 is restored to itsoriginal number. Sd/- Justice Sd/- i 1 Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^- \ i'-\