vj IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A BILASPUR M.C.C.NO. V^O /2011 ^Hn^ ^ InW.P. No. 595/1995 APPLICANT/ PETITIONER \^-'^^ ^$^:^ ^o o^ -...""' ^'"" Yashwant Dwivedi, aged about 54 years, S/o Ram Naresh Dwivedi, Occupation Service, Posted as Nakedar, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) Presently posted at Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (C.G.) VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS 1. Resoondents ,The State of Madhya Pradesh, through Secretary, Department of Agricultural, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) 2. Shri Ramaji Sharma, Additional Director Mandi, Madhya Pradesh, Jail Road, Mandi Board, Bhopal (M.P.) 3. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ambikapur, District Sarguja ^^ through its Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi, Ambikapur (C.G.) 4^ Collector, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF W.P. N0. 5^5/1995, DISMISSED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 28.11.2006 t^ ^ L^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR M.C.C.Np. 190 of2011 APPLICANT PETmONER Yashwant Dwivedi ^ VER8US The State ofMadhya Pradesh & Others. NON-APPLICANT8 RESPONDENTS APPLICATION FOR RE8TORATION OF W.P. No. 595/1995 SB: Hon'ble Shri Satfsh K. Asiiihotri, J. Present: Shri K.K.Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 aad 4. Shri B.D.Gum, Advocate forthe respondeirt No. 3. ORDERrORAL) (Passed on 15th day ofJuly, 2011) I.A. No. 1. This is aii application for condonation of delay of 1550 days, in filing fhe restoration application. 1. This Court, vide order dated 28.11.2006, granted four weeks time to the leamed counsel for the petitioner to comply wifh the order dated 7.2.2006. It was further directed that in default, the petition would stand dismissed for waat of prosecuticm. The order was passed in presence offhe counsel for the petitioner. However, no steps were taken for more than four years as tiie present application for restoration was filed after a delay of 1550 days, without any sufficient explanation. 2. Shri Pandey, leamed counsel appearing for tfae applicaat further submits fhat tfae default committed by tfie applicaat is bonafide, therefore, W.P. No. 595 of 19955, may be restored to its file. 3. Having regard to the facts situation ofthe case, since the petition was dismissed on account of non-compliance of fhe order dated 7.2.2006, the delay is condoned, subject to payment of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as cost, to fhe respondent No. 3. 4. Reasonable and safficiwt eause has been shown. W.P. No. 595 of 1995, is restored to the original file. A copy ofthis order be placed on record of original writ petition and fhe same be listed for hearing. ^ —-g^- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge