^ c ^ -^ IN TBS HIGH_COBBT_QF__CIiHATTISGABH AI BIUSPIB Wri-t fe'tition No ._J_7^^_/2001 PETITIONBR '^^' v -/•'• ?/- :>•• s..?-" \->"~..-^" ,^f .<< ^' ^^^"'r ..t'l''."'? >.(?•' /•1. Bhanwer Lal S/o Badheshyam Iiag B/o Bampur Ward-GokuLpur DBamtari (C'garh). ,•2. Tijay Kumar S/o Gopal Kumhar B/o Bampur Ward-Gokulpur Dhamtari (C'garh)« v^y Versus - ^' 6-" BESPQBDBi'ES 1 ./.S'iate of Chhattisgar'a Tfarough Collector, Dtiamtari(G 'garia). 2. The Additional Commissioner, Raipur Dlvision, Baipur(G'garfa). 3. Board of Bevaiue, Ifaroughi Member, Board of Bevenue, GwalloriM..P.) WBIZ^PEnnCiH UIIDE& ABTICLB 226/227 OF THE e^ss-iuCTciti Foa issuAt.cEOF .A WBIT m THE NATUHE OF ffiQHIBIIIOM , CEaTIORAai ,MAI'IQAMU3 S!Q. 03. Mil Q'm'ES. WBII OB DiaBGTICTi. X;[-HC-22 S:il^I^BT R:T';*3'n?5 i5i?;ira?'an ssr ?, drTl^'lto, islMl^y W.P.No.1709/2001 ^i^^ a^?i I^TIW :aft?( qillfWit"-f 'C|T*Rff ^ TVf\ tl'VW.K -37 Stfiatr 37't?' ration was rejected by the 4/10/2001 | Heard Shri V.K. Pand^y, learned counsel for the petitioners andShri Rajee-tShrivastava, learned Pti £a: the respondents/State* | PetitJ.oners • case Not l28/A-67/99?'2000 was dismis sed by learaed Additional .CommJ.ssioner, Raipur on 10/11/99 on the ground that the party ^efaulted on tbe fixed date. A petition £cc restoration w^s macfe taklng the groand that on the particalar date fix^d in the above case, the mother of the coansel engaged by ^.he petj.tioner died andtte learned counset could not ccine to ^be Court. Despite this ground clearly stated in tbe petit.j.on, the said petition for resto- learned Additional Commissloner On 17/1/2000 the petitione^ approached the Board of Kevenue by filing a revisioii petit. ,on agatnst the ocder of rejection Uj[ "s ") "\ v»\ for restoration of the afo^'esaid case. However, unfortunately, the learned Boasd of Revenijie also rejected tbe petition by order dated 20/4/2000 (Ann^xure P/7) . HavJ.ng ao otber al- ternat'ive, the writ petitl,4>ner. has approached this Court under Article 226/227 o£ tlke Constitution of Indla. It is contended by learned couns^l foc tbe petitioner that •J»r-g6teer fweae^s-, the writ petit.i.oner j has a very argueable and ^^~£rS^" cafif? to go fl-nel-f-Me-^ ..2 -^- .^. r^ ^. [Tft®ife^ 3<|S!T «4ac»('^f^5ST) ^IT^T'qit f^fesn^i rsnr* .. 2 Af-ter bearing learn^d counsel foc the petlt ioneB aswell a? Stir.L Rajeev Shj|a. vastava, learned PL for the respondents/Stds at some ^sngth and on perusal of the relevant documents file d ^efore me, X am of the opinlon tbat th^ learned Court be matter on merits. In oth^r words, in engaged in tbe case died wbi.ch ought to have^'Eaken tbe petitioa for restorat. In the result, this <^)l<<?<VTifr'T TTT!:Rff ^f 'f^^ ^•^.i'i. ^? srtifltt 3ni?i ow ought to have examined the vlew, there was suff.i.cient cause fcs rest<i>Eation of the case i.nasiauch as good ground was shown by ^he petitionec for tbe defa<, Tbe fact. that tea tbe fixefl date tbe tnotber of the couasel s suffici.ently a good reason into consideaation while examiai on<^6=-tta2. orelor o£- petifcion Is allowed, The lnpu$i orders passed by tbe learjj»ed Adclitlonal ConimissJ^i^er t-'NNr Board o-E Reyenue are set-^side and the matter is -•nitted to tbe Aclditional Conroissl.oner to declde on merit» Accoc- dingly the caseshall sta^id Eestpred to its original nunibf The learned Additional Cortimissioner shall Issue notices t( the.parties aflauE and af'fc^r giving th®nadequate opportun; of hear.Uag, tbe aatter shAll be disposed of. The petltioi 1 shall appear te fore the .l.earned A<adAtlonal Conmissioner 01 17/10/2001. Certified copy as p^r ruleso Cbiefjustice GRPRJ—FS'311-1/2001—50,000.