1<f^ c^ THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC N0. tTQ 8ngl8 Benc^ Y 2011 Ajiplicant 'etitioner N^ ^.7/? ^//^ ^ /^ .///'y /// 7s Vimal Construction, a partnership'firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act having registration no. 2254 of 1976-77 office at Ravi Bhavan Jai Stambh Chowk Raipur, through its partner Shri Kamal Chand Jain aged about 54 years, S/o Mankilal Jain R/o Choubey Colony Raipur Versus I?espondents 1. 2. ^- ^ 6.. State of Madhya Pradesh Through its Secretary Public Works Department Bhopal M.P State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary Public Works Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur The Superintendent Engineer, Public Work Department (B 8s R), Raipur The Executive Engineer, Mahasamund Divisions, (B 8s R), Public Works Department Mahasamynd The Sub Division Officer, Public Works Departraent Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund The Tahsildar Raipur APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION 1 T^ft XI-HG—78 \s NIHMT •Ch*<iq» s^ -<<|A|ICI<<, 0ti1+f<K», 'fGi<'iiy3< ^^.....^.Lc......£..^..{..u. 3!^TT?W('yij«l<^I) 3IR?( 'W f(;-fi'!f> WI 3fI^T ihtli'fi 'SWIW ^ffel SII^I 'Mon'blesun nrastaant Kmnar Miihra, J. 28.09.2011 Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel f) Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy.G.A. This application for restoratj preferred for recalling oforder dated) restoration ofthe said writ petition. The application is barred condonation ofdelav has been filed. {»•the applicant. far the State. In view ofthe filing ofwrit p 27/08/2011 the prayer for condonati< Accordingly, the delay in condoned. The writ petition of the yeaij number ofoccasions. Shri Kotecha appeared before the writ court on f court directed the matter to be listedi On 24/09/2010 Sfari Kotech^ on behalfofpetitioner. On 1/10/20)1 15/11/2010 m MCC No. 607/201i1 '^i*)iCT<l1l 'HR^ff ^f fST3t <p:rt^l< ^3ffi]iT3iI^T on ofW.P. No. 310/2003 has been 27/01/2011 and as a coasequence for by 203 days and application for ^tition and the order passed therein on |in ofdelay deserves to be allowed. [filing the restoration application is 2003 was listed before the court on eamed counsel for the writ petitioner 1/07/2009 and prayed for time. This ftfter three weeks. prayed for time to file Vakalatnama 10 the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution and thereaft^r it,.-%as restored vide order dated On 10/01/2011 Shri Kotecha again prayed for time to file Vakalatnamajaiid also No Objection Certifieate. Qn 27/01/2011, the day when it was d^smissed for want of prosecution, Shri SK.N. Nande, leamed counsel app^ared on behatf of Shri J.N. Nande, f@*-a XI-HG—78 °r/ ^=r "4i<i<i<rt'4, ®til<H'i<o,f^iray .^.^....L'^0../.".. 3I^?I •VFf; (*yf^<^q.) ^iiWHtesn^i Advocate and subnutted that Stu-t Objection Certificate and as such h^ Ihe petitioner or on behalfofShri J.I( In the writ petition challeng^ which infact is a revenue recoxery raised by the aufhority for recovery petitioner as a consequence of his the contract for NABARD Work, \^ over WBM aad HP Culverts of dispute was purely contractual, ther^ writ petition is not the appropriate r4 on behalfofthe petitioner it was Taking into consideration, rs^ -^"y petition was continued 3a 2003 fi-om 31/07/2009 on one pretext or| also and thereafter restored, this application for restoration, cons^t dismissed. Accordingly, MCC is dismis^ed. '5fi!'l)I<'1<ill ^WW ^ fs^ <f^^l< ^SifOT 311^51 J.N. JNande tias alreaay issue INO has no instruction either on behalfof IP. Nande. has been made to the demand notice ijsertificate in pwsuance to the demand ifcfthe amountto be recovered fromthe |sontractual obligation with respect to M Renewal in KM 26 to 39 and BT A^nid Pithora Road, Group No.2. The ^fore it was observed by fhis court that r^medy, however sinee no one appeared distnissed for want ofprosecution. tie circunretances, in which the writ an!l time was repeatedly prayed oa and jthe other and it was dismissed earlier (jourt is not inclined to entertain this s^quently prayer for restoration is Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge