HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT B1LASPUR 'v^ RID.R. ?rit Petition (Sj 21 S2 of 2007 2. Saian Kumar Sahare S/o Late Shri Soma Sahare, aged about 47 years, resident of Villaoe Naari, Raipur, Post Mana Tahsl! & District Raipur (CG) '/ereus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Healt'n and Family Welfare Department, Mantralay DKS Bhav/a", Raipur (CG) The Additional Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) The Chief Municipa! & Heaith Officer, Raipur (CG) Present: Shri FS Khare, counsel for the petitioner. Shri AS Kachhawaha, Govemment Advocate for the respondent/State. (Passed on 18" Aprii, 2007) The fol!ovi/ing ora! order of the Court was passed by H.L. Dattu, CJ. This petition arises out of an order passed by the MP State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur ("the Tribunal" for short), in OA No.555/92, dated 02.03.2002. By the Impugned order the Tribunal has rejected ths appiication fited by the appiicant/petitioner. 2) There is a de!ay of neariy five years in approaching this Court, by the petiiioner while questioning the order passed by the Tribunal. 3) The applicant/pet'itioner in his memorandum ofwrit petition has statec that he was sufrering from anemia and thsrefore, he could not file the wrft petition '.','lthin a reasonable time. in support of that contention, he has produced two medical certificates, said to have been issued by a competent doctor. 4) De!ay in filing the writ petition, in our opinion, is v^y fata!. The only explanation offered by the petitioner in approaching ths Court beiatedly is that he vi/as suffering from anemia and therefore, he couid not be in touch with 'nis law/e'r to file appropriate writ petition before this Court. 5) First and foremost, if for any reason, the petitioner was suffering from anemia, in our opinion, it would not prevent him from approaching'this Court within a reasonable time. The expianation offered by the petitioner is vyholly unsatisfacto"/ ;n approaching this Court beiatedty. Therefore, the delay and iaches on the part of the petitioner requires to be taken note of by this Court, and thereafter the petttion requires to be rejected for the simpie and sols reason that this Court In exercise of its writ jurisdiction wil! not oome to the aid of a litigsnt who had s!ept over his right. 6) In that view of matter, without going into the other detalte of the case, the writ petition is rejected without reference to the respondents. Ordered accordingly. ——-——-—— Sd/- Cteef iustice Sd-/ Dmp Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge