Single judge order condoning delay in filing restoration application for a writ petition dismissed for want of prosecution, resting the file and directed pending listing to original writ.
Restoration of W.P. (L) No.23 of 2007 to its original file subject to payment of penalty and recording of copy.
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.
^^^^^^...^sw..-^^.^^^^.-..^
M_TeS_ffO^BiS_ffI^COffRTjQF€ffff^^SffASff^^^ASP^a^G^i
M.Q.G.SQ^ s
/ 20099
( Arising @ut ©/Qrder d&ted 07.08.2008 pas8»d in ».P.(L) So^5/20Q7. }
psTinoysa s • • • ShilQi Mahils Ssma^,
.,^" aegistered under «,P.
SQGieties SegistrattQn
^^'
.^^•i^... .^ AQt» 1975» with its Bead
^" ^^^' Q/fiee a.t Udyog Ken.dra,
^'^^•^^ ^ ^^^
SeQt©r-IV, Shilai Sagar^
^^'^•-..
lurg (Q.Q.)s
V^rsus
SSSPO^MTS s . I.Union ©fIn4.io,, Throughs
Secretaryf QQVt^ Qflndia
Ministry of LabQur, Shastri
, Shavan, ffew Belhi*
^. StoplQyees Prsvident Fund
QrganiaatiQnf Throughs
S@gi@n<il PrQffident FtinS.
^wtosp^1B/^(l'.!^li''1B/^(l'.!^li'' Oommisst^ner^ Indira
yyavasayik Parishar»
H^ Pandrt, Saipur (C^,).
^wtosp^1B/^(l'.!^li''1B/^(l'.!^li'' H^
j« Shri S.Peidh&n, SPFG, ^•^ieSffl Qff-i.GQ, Indira yyasas&yik Parish&r, Pandri, Saipur (C»Q»).
§. S»t. M©hini Z'araag, y2—a/@.Shilai Mahila ^ainaj, Gdyog Kendra, S9Gtor»l7» Shi Isi ffagarf au.rg (Q. ff.}^
ffiPLIQ^IOS MM_aSSZOS£[IOS ©FSaif PEriIIOS.
fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Petitioner
Bhilai Mahila Samaj
VERSU8
Respondents
Union oflndia & Others
APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF W.P. fL) Nb.23/2007
SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J.
Present: Shri B.P. Mishra, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri H.S. Ahulwalia, Advocate for the Union oflndia. Shri Pradeep Saxena, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
(Passed on 3rd day ofOctober, 2012)
LA.No. 1.
This is an application for condonation of 312 days delay in filing restoration application.
The applicant herein has preferred this application (MCC) for restoration of WP (L) No.23 of 2007, which was dismissed on 7.8.2008 for want of prosecution. The applicant had taken his own time in filing this MCC for restoration of writ petition. In the application (I.A.No.l) for condonation of delay in filing the MCC the only ground shown by the applicant is that the counsel came to know about dismissal of the writ petition only on 18.6.2009, as earlier he had no knowledge about the listing and dismissal af the •' petltion. The aforesaid ground is not just fe propei". However, in the interest ofjustice delay in filing the MCC is condoned, subject to payment of a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent No.2 within a period of • 10 days.
Leamed counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the coUnsel for the applicant could not appear on account of bonafide mistake, therefore, W.P. (L) No.23 of 2007, which was dismissed on 7.8.2008, may be restored to its file. Reasonable and sufficient cause has been shown. W.P. (L) No.23 of . 2007 is restoredto the original file.
A copy ofthis order be placed on record oforiginal writpetition and
the same be listed for hearing.
Satish K. Agnihotn Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delay in filing restoration application should be condoned.
Whether the writ petition dismissed earlier for want of prosecution should be restored.
Bhilai Mahila Samaj
Union of India
Satash K. Agnihotri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
