BEJe'ORS SHE HIQH COU&S O? •JUDICATURB OF M.P* AT JABALPUR W,P. N6»^>^3\ /2QOO. PSTITIONER Digreelal Patel s/o Shri T.a.patel Aged aboat 30 years R/o Village Padigaoa Tafa, aod Distt» aaigarla ( M<?«) ^ft- ^&BSPOKfDENTS VERS0S 1. 2. 3. State of M.P, 'airoa^i Secretary^ S^ool Edueation E^>tt« aiopal Cc^missioBer ( Re^eeue) &eve£iae Divislon Bilaspisr Eistet< Bil.aspar Chief Exeeative officer, Jila PaciGiiayat Raigarh Distt, Ralgarh M«P< WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/22? OF 'EHE CONSSITUTIQN oe WDI^. ^--......... . .,-. .,^ ,,., ., ^ /'-' ^i BEFCT?E HON.FAKHARTJDDIET, J. t^.P.No. 3481 / 2000 Digreelal Patel ..'Versus O R D E R S.tate of M. P, and others , ( 20.6.2001 ) This petifcion is directed against the order dated 5<»5e2000 passed by Commissioner g Bilaspur DivnoBilaspur ' i<>e<. respondent n0o2 ^whereby the appeal preferred by the petition has been dismissed as barred by limltationo Petitioner ha.d M&Lflled W.p.No» 3043/98 which was decidea on 9,9 o 98 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on the ground that alfceternative remedy laava i.1able to the petitioner* The p'etitioner filed the appeal before the appellate authority after 30 daya i^e^ beyond the period of linfiitation<» It was filed on 18<»12<»99 i.eo after the limitation was over on the ground that the communication was received from the oounsel on 18-12-99«lit^^f'o ^s the communioafcion itself was received late the appeal cduld not be preferred in time^ 2» Objectlon was raised and by the impugned order the appeal has been held to be barred by limitatlon and was dismissed as such» 3e Learned counsel for the petifcloner suhnits that as sobn ( as the communicat ion x*ras received by, him^ he f iled the appealo Zt s'alxnitted that the delay caused was not malafideo Zt is further submitted that the delay is bonafide xn natuLre and was caused due to late communication betng received from the counselo 4o Havlng considered the facts and circumstances of the • • • \" -2- case^ and also considering that the petitioner 1s a low paid employee ( Shiksha Karmi ) and he is still nofc regularised^ it would be just and proper s[pi<t in the ends of justice that he should have a chanae of getting fche adjadication of the petition on its own merlts<» Thus in the facts and circumstances o£ the case the order passed by the Coinmissloner dtsmissing the appeal being barred by limitation,dt<» 5,5<»2001 is set^asideo The appeal is directed to be heard afresh by the respondent no<2 l^e<» Ctemmissioner^Bilaspur division^Bilaspur^. in accordance with lax-?.-^UV^k^ AnA(lCu^^- There shall be no orders as to oostSe c. c< Gt/)y^^J^ _- 1 SdA Fakhruddin Judge ^ lso