Mahesh Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WA No. 301 of 2019 (Arising out of order dated 27.09.2017 in WPS-2997 of 2016) • Mahesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Babulal Aged About 29 Years R/o Nayapara, Azad Chowk, Ward No.-16, Balodabazar, Tehsil, Police Station And District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department Of Health Services Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2.

Director Directorate Of Health Services, Block- 1 Indrawati Bhawan 3rd Floor, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3.

The Collector Collectorate District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 4.

Chief Medical And Health Officer Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5.

Chief Medical And Health Officer Balodabazar District And Thana Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh -----Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Gagan Tiwari, Dy GA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri PR Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice & Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board Per PR Ramachandra Menon,CJ 08.07.2019 1.

Heard.

2.

The appeal arises from the verdict dated 27.09.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition(S)- 2997 of 2016. 3.

It is seen that the appeal is belated by 507 days, which is sought to be condoned by filing an application in this regard.

wa 301 of 2019 4.

When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to the notice of this Court that several other similar matters were considered and decided by this Court as per common Judgement dated 24.09.2018 in Writ Appeal- 448 of 2017 and connected cases, of course, after condoning the delay involved in filing the appeal. It is stated that similar course might be pursued in this case as well.

5.

Learned counsel representing the State submits that the submission made from the part of the appellant is correct. A copy of the common verdict has been placed for perusal of this Court and we have gone through the same.

6.

After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that no different view requires to be taken in this matter and in the said circumstances, the delay of 507 days is condoned as not opposed.

7.

The matter stands decided in terms of the common verdict passed as above and it stands disposed off accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (PR Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge padma