-y r^ j © s afeAfe&ifcJ-s ' E» i<% IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR ,„... , n. li?l M.C.C. No. 2-&2- /2011 >;• lLL**Jl° ^«r"" (Arising out of order datfe(]^01/02/20.1(y~~p^.ssed in W.A. No. 651/2010 between Bajrang Lal Bansal Versus State of AL . ^__ rtrou' P''*1'' -- - /— - _ . _':::::=2L . . , . ... C.G. aB.d.othws passed by learrfed_ARJ, Bilaspui^' Man'fale; i^>- Applicant : o.u.-'"'"9>^-' T^^! ^fy~^' ^'^ ^•' /- Respondents : couyt. ~\- <.y ^Sajrang Lal Bansal Aged about 48 years, S/o Shri Ladu Ram Bansal, R/o 246, Samta Colony, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary Nagariya Prashashan Vibhag, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3., The Nagar Palika Nigam Raipur Through : Its Chief Municipal Officer Raipur (G.G.) APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION AND RE-ADMISSION THE WRIT APPEAL No^51 /2010 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha and Hon'ble Shri Justjce Radhe Shyam Sharma M.C.C.No.262of2011 Applicant versus Respondents Bajrang Lal Bansal, aged about 48 years, S/o Shri Ladu Ram Bansal, R/o 246, Samta Colony, Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Nagariya Prashashan Vibhag, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Nagar Palika Nigam Raipur through its Chief Municipal Officer, Raipur (CG) Present: Shri Vivek Rathore, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1. Appjication for restoration and re-admission of Writ Appeal No.651/2010 ORAL ORDER (Passedon 21st June, 2011) Per Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.: Heard on I.A.No.1/2011, an application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. 2. AccordJng to the office report, the restoration application is barred by 69 days of limitation.. •+ ' 3. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and the grounds taken in the application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the restoration application is hereby condoned. s~\ ^•fe8nsti,.. ^: "^•"-s^. .sf ^' ^ & 4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties are also heard on the restoration application (M.C.C. No.262/2011). 5. A perusal of the record would show that on 11-11-2010 a peremptory order in relation to removal of default was passed by this Court and consequently the writ appeal was dismissed without reference to the Bench as the peremptory order was not complied by the appellant/applicant. 6. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and the grounds taken in the restoration application, we are satisfied that the non-compliance of the peremptory order in the time specified in the order passed was on bona fide grounds and the restoration application deserves to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, M.C.C.No.262/2011 is allowed and Writ Appeal No.651/2010 is restored to its original number. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Smha Judge Gopal Sd/- Shyam Judge Shar"la