3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C. No.44^// (P.R. No. 2805 7f/2QQ8— '5/2008) APPLICANT NON-APPLICANTS: Shyam Lal Bhimte S/o Shri N.L. Bhimte Aged about 64 years, ResidentofM.I.G. 38, Sagar Deep colony, Uslapur, Bilaspur Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Madhya-Pradesh Audhyogik Vikas Nigam, through its Managing Director, (Panchanan) 2nd Floor, Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.) 2. The Managing Committee, Board of Directors, through Chairman, M.P. Audhyogik Vikas Kendra, Raipur Ltd. C/o M.P. Ayodhyogik Vikas Nigam (Panchanan), 2nd Floor Malviya Nagar, Bhopal. 3. The Managing Director, M.P. Audhyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam, Raipur Ltd. 99, Samta Colony, Raipur (M.P.) (Now C.G.) h 4p^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPLICANT NON-APPLICANTS M.C.C. No. 444 of 2010 : Shyam Lal Bhimte. VERSUS : Madhya Pradesh Audhyogik Vikas Nigam & Others. v APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF THE WRIT PETITION N0. 3414/1995 SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri J.K.Shastri, Advocate for the applicant. QRDERIORAL) (Passed on 20th day of September, 2010) The applicant has filed the instant application for restoration of Writ Petition No. 3414/1995, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17.04.2006. The instant application for restoration was filed on 16.09.2008 which is barred by limitation of853 days. On pemsal of the office report, it is evident that the matter was listed for default before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) on 19.09.2008. Thereafter, the matter was again listed for default before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) on 14.10.2008, 16.10.2008 and 20.08.2010. Thus, it is evident that the applicant has taken almost two years to rempve the default. The applicant has also filed I.A. No. 1, application for condonation ofdelay in filing the restoration application. The applicant has also not offered any cogent reasons for condonation of delay in filing the restomtion application as even after delay of 853 days, the applicant has taken more than two years for removing the default. Thus, it appears that the applicant himself is not interested in ^ pursuing his petition and after such a belated stage, prays for restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. A Division Bench of this Court, in A.Srinwas Rao & Others v. Union oflndia & Others , while deciding a similar issue, observed as under: "9. Law helps the diligent not indolent person9 is often quoted and reiterated principle to highlight the rationale behind the law of limitation. There is no need for us to add cause law in that regard. Law reports contain abundant instances. Although it is said that a person who approaches Tribunal/Forum after the limitation prescribed by the statute has to explain each day's delay to the satisfaction of the Court or Tribunal., as the case may be, even practicing liberalism in the peculiar facts and circumstances ofthis case, we do not fmd any explanation much satisfactory explanation to constitute a 'sufficient cause' to condone the enormous delay of 4 year 3 months and 3 days...." This Court, in Chain Singh Pendre v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others , relying on decisions ofthe Supreme Court, in S.S.Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, C.Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining & Anr., R.N.Bose v. Union of India, State of MP. v. Nandlal, U.P.Jal Nigam & another v. Jashwant Singh & another, State of Punjab & another v. Balkaran Singh, Tridip Kumar Dingal c& Others v. 5'tote of West Bengal & Others, Yunus (Baboobhai) A. Hamid Padvekar v. State of Maharashtra, held that no relief can be given to a person who without any reasonable explanation approaches the Court after inordinate delay. ' 2006(3) CGLJ 528 ' 2009(2) CGLJ 377 €- '•'^, .-.^/ "2^> 7. The applicant herein has not offered any satisfactory explanation for such an inordinate delay of 853 days. Further, even afiter filing of the restoration application on 16.09.2008, the petitioner has taken almost two years in removing the default and listing ofthe case before this Court. 8. In view ofthe foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the application for condonation ofdelayis rejected. Consequently, the application for restoration of the writ petition also stands dismissed. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Amit