Vineet Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCC No. 918 of 2015 • Vineet Singh S/o Shri Avadhesh Singh, Aged About 28 Years C/o Ganga Ram Sukhija, Balram Talkies Road, Verma Tower Gali Number 01, Jarhabhatha, Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through N. K. Oswal (Secretary), Home Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Ramnivas Yadav, Director General Of Police (D G P) Headquarter ( P H Q ) Civil Line, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3. R. K. Viz, Chairman Sub Inspector Recruitment Committee, Additional Director General Of Police (A D G P) Naxal Operation / Chhattisgarh Aarms Force / S. T. F. Police Headquarter Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

4. M.R. Mandavi, Public Information Officer, Office Of Additional Director General Of Police ( A D G P ) Naxal Operation / Chhattisgarh Arm Force / S. T. F. Police Headquarter Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

5. Nitish Pandey S/o Shri Nagendra Prasad Pandey, Aged About 25 Years Roll No. 313319, Category - General, R/o Behind Hotel Ajit, Telipara, Police Station City Kotwali, Bilsapur (Chhattisgarh) Pin Code 495001 (Selected Candidate For Interview)

6. Parmanand Rathore Aged About 27 Years Roll No. 313237, R/o Rathore Bhawan, Devnandan Nagar, Phase - Ii, Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Pin Code 495006 (Selected Candidate For Interview)

7. Ashish Kumar Kotriwar, Aged About 26 Years Roll No. 313270, R/o Ward No. 44, Gupta Daily Needs Street, Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Pin Code 495006 (Selected Candidate For Interview) ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondents/State:

Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

20/11/2015

(1) Heard on I.A.No.1, an application for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration (M.C.C.).

(2) On due consideration, I.A.No.1 is allowed. Delay in filing the restoration application is condoned.

(3) Counsel for the petitioner is heard on restoration petition. (4) The petitioner is seeking restoration of W.P. (S) No. 1476/2013 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 07.05.2014. (5) On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the grounds taken in the restoration petition, I am satisfied that the absence of petitioner's counsel on 07.05.2014 when W.P. (S) No. 1476/2013 was taken-up for hearing was based on bona fide grounds.

(6) M.C.C. No. 918/2015, therefore, is allowed and W.P. (S) No. 1476/2013 is restored to its original number. Sd/ (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge D/-