Vivek Kumar Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT APPEAL NO. 186 OF 2015 Vivek Kumar Pandey S/O Shri Gouri Shanker Pandey Aged About 26 years Occupation Business, R/O Niche Para Jai Stambha Chowk Dharamjaigarh Civil & Revenue District Raigarh ( C.G.) ---- Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Collector/District Magistrate Raigarh District Raigarh ( C.G.)
3. The Territory Manager M/S Retail Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Bhilai, District Durg ( C.G.)
4. Mahendra Singh Komal S/O Late Sarabh Singh Aged About 45 Years R/O Civil Line Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh ( C.G.) ---- Respondents For Appellant :
Mr. K.N. Nande, Advocate.
For State :
Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Dy. Advocate General.
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Order On Board 23/03/2015 1.
I.A. No.1 of 2015 has been filed to condone delay of one year and two months in filing the appeal.
2.
The present appeal arises from order dated 6.1.2014 in Writ Petition (C) No.1 of 2014. The writ petition having been preferred against an interim order. The Learned Single Judge held that the efficacy of the interim order having already lapsed after three months nothing survived for adjudication. We are further informed by the Counsel for the Appellant himself that the final order has subsequently been passed on 2.1.2014 by the authority concerned.
3.
We have gone through the application for condonation of delay. The only ground mentioned is that the Appellant had no knowledge or information about disposal of the writ petition and he was under the impression that it was still pending. He visited the Chamber of his Advocate on 4.3.2015 when he learnt the case has already been dismissed. There is no sufficient cause shown in the pleadings to condone the delay.
4.
A person filing a case in a Court is expected to be vigilant in his own interest. The law of limitation cannot be invoked for aiding those who are indolent and not vigilant for the protection of their own interest and rights. 5.
We therefore find no reason to condone delay. I.A. No.1 of 2015 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also fails. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Anu