Surendra Tiwari v. The General Manager Beekay Engineering Corporation And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
M.C.C. N0.
^JL 12015 (Arising out of an order dated 01.08.12 passed in W.P. No.600 / 2000, Surendra Tiwari Vs. General Manager 85 Another whereby the Writ Petition was dismissed for want of prosecution). APPLICANT Surendra Tiwari S/o Shri Markhande Tiwari Aged about 55 years, R/o Baikunth Nagar, [Petitionei 1^""^^ > t>^L,..<.^ ^-.^..-Sn, IvU Camp-2, Bhilai, District - Durg-fC.G.) \^-\'^ ^•^''
KESPONDENTS
VERSUS
^•""..AW-i .djCA8&'"
y{6S-f"^ v^~ 1) The General Manager Beekay Engineering Corporation, 45/47, Industrial Estate, Bhilai, [Respondents] District - Durg-(C.G.) 2) Meraber Judge,' Industrial Court, Bench Raipur,District - Raipur-fC.G.) ^- .
APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF W.P.N0.600 / 2000.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB^ HON'BLE SHRI P. SAM KOSHY 8s HON'BLE SHRI C.B. BAJPAI, J.J.
M.C.C. N0. 61 OF 2015 APPLICANT Surendra Tiwari
Versus
RESPONDENTS The General manager Beekay Engineer Corporation and Another.
APPUCATION FQR RESTORATION OF W.P. N0. 600/2000. Appearancie:- Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate, for the applicant. O RDER .^- (06- 02-2015) 1.
Heard on I.A.
No.
01which is an application for condonation. of delay. i, 2.
The instant M.C.C is barred by limitation of 871 days. 3.
On due consideration, as sufficient cause has been shown in not filing of the applicatiQn for restoration within stipulated period, the I.A:" No. 01 is allowed and the delay in filing of the application for restoration is condoned.
4.
The instant M.C.C. has preferred against the rejection of writ petition No. 600/2000 which was dismissed for want ,of prosecution on 01.08.2012.
5.
Counsel for the applicant submits that after the writ petition was transferred to the State of Chhattisgarh, he has not received any intimation about the said writ petition by his counsel. Therefore, after the transfer he could not engage another counsel on accouht of which there was non appearance !i IB
•^•.
k --"'"S?::i ft'
3^ /'''
on the part of the appellant on 01.08.2012 on which the writ petition go.t_ dismissed for want of prosecution. As sufficient cause has been explained by the counsel for the applicant for his non-appearance on 01.08.2012. We are of the opinion that the M.C.C. deserves to be allowed.
6.
Accordingly and in view of the ahove, the instant M.C.C. is allowed, order dated 01.08.2012 dismissing the writ petition No. 600/2000 for want of prosecution is hereby recalled and writ petition Np, 600/2000 is restored to its original number. 7.
No OFderas to costs.
8.
A copy of this order be kept in the record of writ petition No.600/2000.
Sd/- p. Sam Koshy -Judge C.B. BAJ Judge