This court restored a previously dismissed writ appeal for want of prosecution on the satisfaction that the petitioner's counsel was absent bona fide.
M.C.C. No. 282/2008 (application for restoration) is allowed; Writ Appeal No. 157/2008 is restored.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
iB°>l
||HlftH C:niI
i. |i»S«£Gt
'fcrf[1ti»<>k«|RT OF
^i6'^E
'^si:s
'iSIUN|
|---|---|---|
||Snn'
^EVE .|1-nM'W P
E-S^U?S'Ti
'Gf'^'^a.
^,n f^ f^
^il^. ^0'S ^^ •^n^'i^
ivij.^a^'s i^iOi^^^ OT ^y^?.$|
||appFj i AMT
S'-LS
'&
GaE£n,.?B;siEtt
S.
^^•T-jTi^^j^O.
r-^ 11 i s^'r^^i'^|Aarti Vishv/akarma, Wife of Mahendra
Kum8r ViSEiwaksrsTis.
soed sbout 20
years,
R/o
D.C.
Road,
Janpadp;
Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)|
||| %«&^ci?
sSl—
^i«t=l'\i fc^ Eac 1^|1.
State
of
Chhattisgarh,
Through:
Its
Secretary,
Health
department,|
|||Mantraisya,
D.K.S.
Bhawan,
Ralpur|
|||2.
State
of
Chhattisgarh,
Through:
Coiiecfor,
Ambikapur,
District Surguja
(T* rs 'i
^'^/.^.J|
|||3.
Chief
Medical
and
Heaith
Officer,
Arnbikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)|
|||4.
Santosh Kumar Yadav, S/'o Not known
to the appeliant, OGCupation Ward Boy,
R/o
Village
Udari,
Lundra,
District
Surgisja (C.G.)|
|^Qi||5.
Ajav Kumar Sahu, S/o Not Known to the
appeiiant,
Occupation Ward
Boy,
R/'o
Viliage
Murgunda,
Tahsi!
Dhamdha,
District Durg (C.G.)|
|||6.
Kumari Mamta Sahu, D/o Not known to
the appeliant, R/o Village Sanna, District
Jashpur (C.G.i|
fOiJcation for Restoration ofWrit ADp-eai Mo. 151
^y^^f
Shri Sunii Tripathi, learned counse! for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, learned Government Advocate ror irthe the Stc State/respondents No.1 to 3.
!Dt<
^•^'sK'^^^^S^—^-"• <-;•
/y~^'v<br>
The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by
i.r.?i-££f^^V
Learned counse! for the partles are heard on the restoration petition.
On due considerath ?5i ihpnJiR^;lnn% sfi i ia'O'CSi^t'i 1'S ^? nf 5 3-^St! 3 }c^' counsel for the partles, we are satisfied that the absence of the petitioner's/appellant'scounselon31-07-2008whenVVritAppeal No.157/2008 was taken up for hearing, was based on bona fide nrrii 's'^'t U^t i^i'J.
i Nn ^'u>, 1 i i^! ?::,7/9HHR t S ^.\J:\f\J- ii^ !?;; i r?s<5fnr?irl 'S-hSt.VS <£/^-' iTi 1,.^ tl<3 if?i ^•s nrinln^i El-til iSti t niimhpr iti^i E iEvf^i .._ -<»^ •——.— ^£a. Sd/_. '. ^i^ninarSintia Sunil t Sd/judfee Chief Justice
sus&u
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of the writ appeal for want of prosecution should be restored due to bona fide absence of counsel.
Aarti Vishvakarma
State of Chhattisgarh
Santosh Kumar Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
