Manish Kumar Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh
-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCC No. 519 of 2020
1. Manish Kumar Verma, S/o Triloki Prasad Verma, Aged About 25 Years, Occupation Incharge, Paddy Procurement Center Sildaha, R/o Sildaha, Police Station And Tahsil: Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. Mo. No. 9340129259 ---- Applicant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Raipur, Police Station - Rakhi, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Collector, Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
3. General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited, 6th Floor, Tower - C, Commercial Complex CBD, Sector 21, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies Mungeli, Police Station, Tahsil And District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
5. District Marketing Officer, Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipadan Sangh Maryadit Mungeli, Police Station - Tahsil And District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
6. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Nehru Chowk Bilaspur, Police Station - Civil Line, Tahsil And District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
7. Nodal Officer, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
8. Sub - Divisional Officer, Pathariya, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh -----Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ratnesh K. Agrawal, Advocate For State : Ms. Akansha Jain, Dy. Govt. Advocate For MARKFED : Mr. Chetan S. Chouhan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate For Resp. 6 & 7 : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate
-2Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 18.11.2020
1. The present MCC has been filed seeking modification of the Order passed by this Court on 17.07.2020 in WPC No. 1416 of 2020.
2. The modification sought for is to the extent that on account of certain practical difficulty, the representation which the petitioner was supposed to file, could not be filed and thus prays for extension of time so that the representation can be made afresh. The reason for non-filing of representation within the stipulated period is the fact that the petitioner meanwhile was pursuing his remedy by seeking anticipatory bail for charges of offences punishable u/s 409 and 34 of IPC granted anticipatory bail on 14.09.2020.
3. Ms. Akansha Jain, Dy. Government Advocate raises objection inrespect-of relief sought for. According to the State counsel, since an FIR has already been lodged against him there does not seem to be any good reason why the petitioner should now be permitted to make a fresh representation.
4. Considering the nature of modification and the ground mentioned in the MCC, more particularly the fact that the fact that the petitioner was for a bonafide ground was not able to make the representation within the stipulated period, also considering the fact that the order of this court would become redundant if extension is not granted to the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that a strong case for allowing MCC has been made out.
5. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted further a period of ten days from today for making his representation for further compliance to be made
-3by the respondents as directed by this Court in its Order dated 17.07.2020 passed in WPC No. 1416 of 2020.
6. With the aforesaid extension of time, the present MCC stands allowed and disposed off. Let a copy of this Order be made a part of record of WPC No. 1416 of 2020.
Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rahul