HIGH COURT OF CHHAtmSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVSSldN BENCH I-..'" CORAM HON'BLE SHRI I^.L. DATTU, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI D.R. DESHMUKH, J. APPELLANT/ PETIT10NER RESPONDENTS Writ ADpeall No.91 of 2007 Lal^han Lal Yadav aged - 40 years sqn of Panchu Ram Yadav, Working as — Chcwkidar, at ~ Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur, District —Raipur(C.G.) Rfo Abhanpur, District- Raipur. Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through - The Secretary, Panchayat &. Rura! Development Department, Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. D^veiopment Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, H.Q. - Raipur (C.G.) 3. TheCollector, District-Raipyr(C,G.) 4. Chief Executive | Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur, Districf ~ Raipyr (C-G-) . i 5. Punu Ram Yaday Qhowkidar Cum Farrash at ~ Janpajd P^ichayat, Pallari, District-Raipur(C!G.) j 6. Lachchhi Ram Chawkidar Cum Farrash at ~ Janpad F^nchayat, Pithoyra, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) Writ Appeal U/S - 2 (1^ of theChhattisaarh Hiah Court (Appeal to Division BencM Act. 2006. Present: Shri RK Kesharwani, counsel for the appeilant. Shri NK Agrawal, DY AG for the State respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on2nu IVlay, 2007) The following oral order of the Court was passed by H.L.Dattu,CJ. : This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S)No.1215/2007, dated 01.03.2007. By the impugned order learned Single Judgetias rejected the writ petition solely on the ground of delay and laches on the partofthepetitionerin approaching this Court. (2) The facts of the case are: ^ The petitioner was apppinted asChowkidaron iQ8.pl .1987. He was granted regular payscalesometjmeiri;them^ 1993. The responderrts --authorities by order datect 30. 12.1997, has'cancetled the order of regutarization passed in favour of the petitioner. It is this order, which is calted in question by the petitioner in the writ petition in the year 2007. In the writ petition the petitioner has not stated the reasons for approaching this Court belatediy. If for any reason, the petitioner was preveipted from approaching this Court within a reasonable time, after an adverse orderjis passed against him, he should explain the same while filing the writ petition. j (3) We have also perused the averments made in the writ petition. Except saying that hewas making representations before the authorities, nothing else is stated by the petitioner in the writ petition.In order to condone the detay in fiiing the writ petition, there must be a suffipient and satisfactory reason. Since the said reasons are not fbrthcoming, iearned Single Judge, m our ppinion was justified in rejecting thewrit petition solely onthe ground ofdelayandtaches. In that view of the matter, interference with the said order is not calted for. Accordingiy, the writ appeal is rejected. Ordered accordjngly. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge