High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCC/911/2016allowed

Gayaprasad Lillhare v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-12-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCC No.911 of 2016

1. Gayaprasad Lillhare S/o Shri Shikuram Lillhare, Then Aged About 34 Years, Occupation- Shiksha Karmi Class-II, Government Middle School Musra, Block Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

2. Dinesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Sahu, Aged About 41 Years Occupation- Shiksha Karmi- II, Government Middle School Lal Bahadur Nagar, Block Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

3. Jiwan Lal Chandravanshi S/o Shri Chandravanshi, Aged About 34 Years Occupation- Shiksha Karmi- I I, Government Middle School Chidu, Block Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

4. Baraturam Rawat S/o Shri Manno Lal Rawat, Aged About 41 Years Occupation- Shiksha Karmi- I I, Government Middle School Ramatola, Block Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

5. Ashok Kumar Verma S/o Shri Kartik Lodhi, Aged About 34 Years Occupation- Shiksha Karmi- I I, Government Middle School Shivpuri, Block Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

6. Awadesh Kumar Kankarane S/o Shri Goverdhanlal, Aged About 41 Years Occupation- Shiksha Karmi- I I, Government Middle School Bortalab, Block Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicants

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat & Village Development, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur Now Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, P.S. Abhanpur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Chief Executive Officer Panchayat, Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Executive Officer Panchayat, Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicants

For Applicants :

Shri Atul Pandey, Advocate For Non-applicant/State :

Ms. Astha Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 08/12/2016 (1) Learned counsel for the applicants is heard on restoration application.

(2) The applicants are seeking restoration of Writ Petition (S) No.1529/2010 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 04.11.2016.

(3) On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants and the grounds taken in the restoration application, I am satisfied that the absence of the applicants' counsel on 04.11.2016 when Writ Petition (S) No.1529/2010 was taken-up for hearing was based on bonafide grounds.

(4) Accordingly, M.C.C. No.911/2016 is allowed and Writ Petition (S) No.1529/2010 is restored to its original number subject to payment of cost of Rs.6,000/- payable to the High Court Legal Aid Committee within 15 days from today.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-