».'»« f ff^K~/:-. ^s^ wse"'! c ,\-^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATnSSARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fC) N0. 45^ /2007 PETETEONER Smt. Kavita Budhiya, Aged about 40 .<->T,.I years, W/o. Shri Vijay Budhiya, R/o. 0 ^..•••'"'\\1.' l.;.^.*4 Hero Honda Show Room, Main Road, ^%^.^^--" ^•••••:^&^-r" t.Yi'1 ^^^'^ l y'*'' Korba (C.fcJ yt a&' ,« ~- a&.--" ^ RESPONbENTS ^ VERSUS ^ 1) State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Collector, Korba (C.6.). 2) Shri N.V. Vijayraj, Aged about 40 yrs Through Chambramunda Chelil Vilasin, Aged about 62 years, R/o. Neqr Railway Crossing, AAain Road, Korba ^"S. (t;.O.J. ^^" ^ ^ ^.^ ^^ smt- Chambramunda Chelil Vilasin, Aged about 62 years, W/o. P. Kutti Kannan, Through Mukhtiyar Aam Vijay Kumar Budhiya, S/o. Shri Shyam Sundar Buahiya, K/'O. main xoad, Korba (C.6.). WRIT PETITtON UNDER ARTtCLE 227 OF THE CONSTtTUTrON OF 1NN.A ^ ^^ -'^^ ^.0< ^ HIGH COTIRT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR WRIT PBTITION (C| N0. 4S37 OF 2007 PBTmONER : Smt. Kavita Budhiya RESPONDENTS Versus The State of Chhattisgarh and others. WRFT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA (Slnide Bench: Honlile Shri N.K. AaanBal. J.) Present : Shri Arvind Kumar Dubey, counsel for fhe petitloner. Shri G.D. Vaswani, Govemment Advocate for the State. None for respondents No. 2 & 3 though served. ORALORDER (Passed on 18*h day ofAprll, 2011) With consent of fhe parties, the matter is heard finaUy. 2. The instant petition caUs ui question the legaUty and propriely of the order dated 14-12-2006 passed by Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in appeal No. 10/SA/B- 105/441/2006 whereby fhe application for condonation of delay filed along wifh the appeal was disinissed by the Board of Revenue and consequently, the appeal was also dlsmissed. 3. Brief facts of fhe case are as under: Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue along wifh appUcation under Section 5 of fhe Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 34 days in preferring the appeal against the order passed by CoUector ofStamp, Korba in Case No.06/B-105/2005-06. According to petitioner, she was Ul and was on bed-rest from 13-08-2006 to 27-09-2006 and after recovermg fix>m iUness, unmedlately she has filed fhe appeal on ^ 03-10-2006. The delay is unintentional and bona&de which deserved to be condoned. Leamed Board of Revenue dismlssed the condonation of delay application holding medical certificate as vague. Hence, this petition. 4. I have heard leamed comsel for fhe parties aad perused the order unpugned. 5. It appears that fhe reasons assigned by fhe petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the appeal were not controverted by fhe respondents. If at an, in fhe opinion of Board of Revenue the medical certificate was vague, it should have gwen an opportunity to fhe petitioner for adducing evidence in support of medical certiflcate. Wifhout ^vu^ such opportunity, fhe dismissal of appllcation on the above grozind is iinwarranted and uncalled for. 6. In the light of above discussion, m the considered opmion of this Court, fhe order impugned is not sustainable in law, deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to Board ofRevenue to decide the petitioner's appllcation for condonation of delay, after affording opportunity to fhe petitioner for adducing evidence in support of medical certificate filed along wifh application for condonation ofdelay. N.K. Agrawal Judge