^ AF({ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR AppUcao.t PetitLoner Non- applicaats Respondents Versus 1. M.C.G. No. 344 of 2009 Naresh TR¥ari, S/o Shii Gum.aaa Rain Tiwari, aged about 37 years, R/o Balrampur, P. S. 85 Block Bakampur, Tahsil Pal, District Surguja C.G. 2. State of Chhattisgarh fhrough the Department of Local Adnimistration, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Distdct Raipiir C.G. The Nagar Paiichayat BaIramLpur, through the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Paachayat, Balrarsipur, Distnct Surguja C.G. APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OFW.P,(S1 N0. 7031/2007 (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AgniUotri J.) Shri Rakesh Paadey, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Arviad Dubey, Paael Lsiwyer for fhe respondeat No. 1. ORDBR(orall (Passed on this 3rd day ofSeptember, 2009) Heaid. The appUcant has filed fhis application for restoraUon of the Writ Petition(8) No. 7031/2007 (Naresh Tiwari Vs. State of Chhatdsgarh & aiiother), which was dismissed for waat of prosecution vide order dated 4th March,2008. The appUcaat has filed I.A.No.l for coudonatiou of delay. The maia writ petition was listed for hearmg on 4th March, 2008. On tiie first round fhe matter was passed over aiid thereafter when aone appeared nor aiiy representation was niade on behalf of fhe petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed for waat of prosecution. The applicaiit has fUed fhis appUcation for restoration of the writ petition along with aa. appUcation for condonation ofdelay (I.A.No. 1). As per the office report there is a delay of504 days. [LS^ 08 (C) 600S J.P) i {'89Z,OOSJ (6005) }g {17917008 TT 4.9005) >t orp Aq pmm m ^xuoq ^q o^ si qoiqM SJO^OBJ QI^JO ouo ST ssqoBt jo ABpa,, ^Bq^ pQAiosqo ^JUOQ Qiuojdng ^iqLUOH gi8J^q[SBJisqiSM[ JO O^B^S 'A .TBSlOApBd PimBH V (psqqooq^s) sncnA UI ,/3SOJC ^Bpp 9Tp MOq pTIB H^qM PUB 3JB pQmrep ^pQTaoj: ^ipi pire ^qSu ^uoicrepunj jo qoB^jq 9Tp ^ieqM uodn puodop ]JIM ^i -ss^o o^ QSBO IHOJJ SuiAlreA pxre uo §uipu3d9p4jnoosrp ^jojoq S^OBJJO sisBq QT^ uo popToop sq o^ saq pxre uori.ojosTp jo suo ST UOT^SQUI) sqj, '^inoo 13 qoBojdd^ ireo uosjod B uoqA^ o^ SB ^TDII[ JOMOI ou ST ojsip prre ^TUITI joddn ou ST ^JQIIJL,, ^Bip. p^Aiosqo SBM ^T 'ABpp o^mpjom pxre pQureidx^un SmsuBO ^noo grp Srnx[OBOjdd^ m sAap 533 5[oo^ ^rrenaddB 3ip M3i[M <gS.i9q^o pUB psSu^g ^OA^ jo O^B^S ^A sjaxi^o piiis ttiSiiia ^tanM dlPI-UL n? ^noo Qujojdns oiq^uoH •JO^OBJ ^UB^ZOdTOI TIB ^q O^ pQJQpTSUOO iraoq saq A^pp pua s^qoB^ pire suoTSTOQp jo S^TJQS u in ^IUOQ sirp, Aq p^uiurexo uooq saq SQqo^ pire ABppjo uopsonl) 9i[^ ^BTp pQAiQsqo ^IUOQ guiMdng oiq^uoH ^TO. ^TOq^ou^ piiis q3ii(8 ^iiBAqs^r •SA TOq^oiiis pxiB miesSiN psp •d •a UI *Ae^pjo uoi^BUOpuoo joj4U3UJ3jinb3j QTR. ng[nj ^ou SQOp pire AXO^OBJS^S ^ou ST Aapp jo uo^uopuoo joj uoi^BU-Bidxo OIp ^BIp. AY9TA 91^ JO ST ^IUOQ STIp 'SnqjL *AjO^OBJSr|.BS ^OU OS{B ST uop.^uBTdxs ^uanbssqns sip uaAg •6002 '^P ip0€ o^ goOS 'q^jepy ^ mojj pouod QIR JGJ pojogo uooq saq uoT^xretdxo ou pire 600S <ArnLP TIR sdo^s ^rrB 35[B^ ^ou pip jQuor^ri.od ^q^ <8005 <iI3JBp\[ ^ uo possad SBM j^pjo oqj, •AJO^OPJS^S ^ou , ST ^Bpp ^BIHpJOIlI JOJ J3UOT^T^3d 31^ Aq U3AT§ UO^UBldXQ Qqj, •9 o 8. 9. Thabir High Court when they exercise their discretionaiy powers. In aii appropriate case fhe High Court inay refuse to iiivoke its extraordinary powers if fhere is such uegUgence or omission on fhe part of fhe appUcaat to assert his right as taken ia conjunction with. fhe lapse of tiiae aad ofher circunistaaces, caiises prejudice to fhe opposite party. In R< N. Bose Vs. Uaion of ladia4 , relied on m Yuaus (supra) it was observed that no rcUef can be gwen to fhe petitioner who wifhout aay reasonable explaaatLori approaches fhe Court after iaordiaate delay. In State of M.P. Vs. Naadlal5 , relied ou m Yuaus (supra), it was stated fh.at fhe High Court ia exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist fhe tardy aad fhe iadolent or fhe acquiescent aad fhe lethargic. If fhere is mordmate delay on fhe part of fhe petitioner aad such delay is not satisfactorily explaiaed, fhe High Court inay decline to inteivene. In view of the foregomg, the appUcation for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the M.C.C.No. 344/2009 is also disinissed. I ^^11 ! Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 4^IR 1970 SC 470) 5 (AIR 1987 SC 251)