'i^ tss'i. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Applicant Respondent M.C.C.No. 633 of 2011 Union of India through Divisional Commercial Manager, SEC Rly, RaipTJr VERSUS Hara Dhan Dutta, S/o Shri JC Dutta, aged about 50 years, Ex - TTE, resident of Hemu Nagar, Hosue No.505, near Rly Line Old Cabin, Bilaspur (CG) ApDlication for restorationof WP No.1121 of 2004 Present: Shri Saurabh Dangi, counse! for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, counselfor the respondent. ORDER ISt (21SISeptember,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned co,unsel for the parties are heard on IA No.1/201 1, a petition for condonation of delay in .filing the restoration petition. 2) The restoratiorr petitiofffiled by the petitioner is reported to be hopelessly time barred by as many as 1184 days (about 3 % years). 3) The application for condonation of delay contains only three paragraphs which are re-produced verbatim: "1. That the applicant had filed the above mentioned- writ petition against the order passed by ^25. M.C.C.No.633of2011 the Central Administrative Tribunal. 2. That, the delay was attributed to that no counsel was allotted the petition. As soon as the petition was allotted to undersigned, the application for restoration was filed. 3. That, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing of this restoration application is not deliberate but bonafide on the part of the applicant. This constitutes a sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the restoration application within the stipulated time as provided under this Act. The MCC therefore, deserves to be condoned in the interest ofjustice." 4) From the above quoted contents of the application for condonation of the delay, it is apparent that the petitioner has miserably failed in showing sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of about 3 % years in fiting the restoration petition. 5) As the petitioner has failed in showing sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the restoration petition, we are left with no other option, but to dismiss the application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration petition. 6) IA No.1/2011, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 7) Consequently, the restoration petition (MCC No.633 of 2011) r- . '.t is also dismissed as time barred. Sd/- The Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Aganval Judge "v5 padma