,!s.. IN THE fflGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR rCHHATTISGARH) W.P.rO No. 6 8^3" Of2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^-Shiv Shanker Agrawal, sonofLate Rudra Nath Agrawal, aged 55 years, resident ofKushalpur, Purani Basti Raipur (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS :-1. Inderchand Lunia, son ofChampa Lal Lunia, Through Paras Textiles, ^•' ^-.>>^. ^y &as" 1^"^'>- Malyiva Road, Raipur (C.G.), l^s^.£..••"" 2. Anupam Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Raipur (C.G.), '&5; Iff" -<-v PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONST1TUTION OF INDIA HI6H COURT OF CHHATTESSARH AT BILA9>UR Writ Petition (C} No. 6845 of 2006 Petitioner Shiv Shflnkar Agrawal Versus Respondents Inder Chand Luniya & others Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Present: Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vimlesh Bajpayee, coun»l for the respondent No. 1/caveator. ORDER (Possed on 7H1 doy December, 2006) The following order of the Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri. J. 1. The present petition filed by the petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 22.6.2005 passed by -the Principal Secretory, Sovemment of Chhatt-isgorh, Co-operative Depart'ment in exercise of his power imder Section 78 of Chhatt-i^arh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 2. The petition does not disclose the complete facts excqat that the revision hos been dismissed by the competent cuthorit/ on the 9round of dehy in cdssence of an application for condonotion of the deloy. The petition is vague, devoid of facts dnd merit. ..:: w;,^l 3. It is well setl-led principle of law •Hiatdelay connot be condoned without mcd<ing a proper application therefor. 4.1n the facts and circumstonces of the case, the petitioner has admitfredly not filed any applicort'ion for condonationof dekiy in filling the revision, which hos been dismissed by the competent outhority. The fact of the case do not warrant any interference with the order dated 22.6.20)5. 5. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 5ubhash Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge