HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram Applicant Non-applicants Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, JJ. M.C.C.No.334/2008 B.K.Shrivastava, S/o Late Shri M.R.Shrivastava, Aged about 67 years, Divisional Account Officer (Retd.), 22, SBI Colony, Sunder nagar, Distt. Raipur (CG) Versus 1. Controller Auditor General of India, New Delhi. 2. Principal Accountant General, Lekha Bhawan, Jhansi Road, Gwalior, Distt. Gwalior (MP) 3. Accountant General (A & E) I, 53, Arera Hills, Hoshangabad < Road, Bhopal (MP) 4. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal Bench at Jabalpur, Distt. Jabalpur (MP) ApDlication for Restoration of M.C.C. No.174/2006. Present : Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for the applicant. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 05.11.2008) The following oral order of the Court was passed by Dhirendra Mishra, J. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant has prayed for restoration of M.C.C.No.174of2006. 3. From perusal of the order dated 10th May, 2006 passed in M.C.C.No.174 of 2006 it appears that writ petition No. 2092/2002 was dismissed on 23.06.2003 for want of prosecution and M.C.C.No.174 of 2006 was initiated for restoration of the said writ petition. Application for restoration was allowed and order of dismissal of writ petition was set ^r^w^ ,^\ aside on the condition that the applicant deposits a sum of Rs.100/- to the credit of Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee within 10 days. Since the petitioner has failed to comply with the above condition, M.C.C.No. 174/2006 for restoration of writ petition stood dismissed by virtue of peremptory order. 4. The applicant has filed instant application for restoration of M.C.C.No.174 of 2006 with an inordinate delay of 788 days. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is ready and willing to deposit the amount of Rs.100/- as was ordered in M.C.C.No.174 of 2006. The delay occasioned on account of misreading of the peremptory order and the same is bona fide. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant. We observe that the applicant has been recklessly negligent in not complying the earlier order passed in M.C.C.No.174 of 2006 by this Court and this application has been filed after more than two years without any satisfactory explanation. 7. Considering the facts and circum^tances of the case, we do not find any merit in the instant application, which deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^)c