Lokmanya Sahakari Gruha Nirman Sanstha Maryadit, Raipur v. State Of Madhya Pradesh Now Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Review Petition No.124 of 2016 Lokmanya Sahakari Gruha Nirman Sanstha Maryadit, Raipur Through Its President Shri S.D. Upasane, R/o- Tikarapara, Raipur, (M.P.), Now Through President Shri Krishna Kumar Ganoudwale, S/o Laxman Rao Ganoudwale, Aged About 70 Years, R/o- Gole Chowk Rohanipuram, Raipur, DistrictRaipur, (Chhattisgarh). ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue Vallabh Bhawan, Now State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, (Chhattisgarh).

2. Collector, Raipur, (Madhya Pradesh), Now Chhattisgarh,

3. Madhya Pradesh, Now Chhattisgarh, Housing Board Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, (Chhattisgarh).

4. Madhya Pradesh, Now Chhattisgarh, Class- Iii Employees, Association Through The Dy. Registrar Co-Operative Societies Raipur, (Chhattisgarh).

5. Netaji Subhash Co-Operative Society, Through The Commissioner, Raipur Division Raipur, (M.P.), Now (Chhattisgarh). ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri G.M. Hasan, Advocate.

For Respondent-State :

Shri Majid Ali, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Gupta, Chief Justice Order on Board 19/08/2016 1.

The Petitioner by means of this review petition seeks review of the following order passed by this Court on 22.1.2016 in M.C.C. No.56 of 2016,. which reads as follows:

"1. This application for restoration of Writ Petition No.1496 of 1994 dismissed on 24.11.2014 for non-prosecution has been filed on 14.1.2016.

2.There is no explanation for this long inordinate delay of 378 days except for stating that the Petitioner had engaged a Counsel for pleading and arguing the matter and when he approached the Registry of this Court on 21.12.2015 he came to know the matter had been dismissed for non-prosecution. There are no pleadings regarding date of knowledge and there is also no statement that the Petitioner was not in touch with the earlier Counsel.

3. No sufficient cause has been made out for restoration of the writ application. The grounds have been urged very casually. Mere change of Counsel can be no explanation for the delay. The restoration application is dismissed." 2.

Other than saying that this order has not been passed on humanitarian consideration no other ground is urged. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Gupta) Chief Justice Anu