HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
M C C 444 of 2010
Shyam Lal Bhimte
...Petitioners
Versus
Madhya Pradesh Audhyogik Vikas
Nigam & Others
...Respondents
! Shri J K Shastri
^
CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J
Dated: 20/09/2010
: JUDGEMENT
ORDER ORAL
APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF THE WRIT PETITION NO
3414/1995
1. 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.
2. The instant application for restoration was filed
on 16.09.2008 which is barred by limitation of 853 days.
3. On perusal 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 remove the
default.
4. The applicant has also filed I.A. No. 1,
application for condonation of delay in filing the
restoration application. The applicant has also not
offered any cogent reasons for condonation of delay in
filing the restoration 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.
5. A Division Bench of this Court, in A.Sriniwas Rao &
Others v. Union of India & Others1 , while deciding a
similar issue, observed as under:
“9. Law helps the diligent not
indolent person’ 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
of this case, we do not find any
explanation much satisfactory
explanation to constitute a
`sufficient cause’ to condone the
enormous delay of 4 year 3 months
and 3 days..”
6. This Court, in Chain Singh Pendre v. State of
Chhattisgarh & Others2, relying on decisions of the
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 M.P. v. Nandlal,
U.P.Jal Nigam & another v. Jashwant Singh & another,
State of Punjab & another v. Balkaran Singh, Tridip
Kumar Dingal & Others v. State 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.
7. The applicant herein has not offered any
satisfactory explanation for such an inordinate delay of
853 days. Further, even after filing of the restoration
application on 16.09.2008, the petitioner has taken
almost two years in removing the default and listing of
the case before this Court.
8. In view of the foregoing and for the reasons stated
hereinabove, the application for condonation of delay is
rejected. Consequently, the application for restoration
of the writ petition also stands dismissed.
JUDGE