Allowed¶26

Arun Kumar Minj (Dead) through Lrs Smt. Rima Minj v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jan 2026MCC/7/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; MCC No. 7 of 2026; Rajani Dubey, J.; condonation of delay in payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/- imposed by order dated 25.03.2025 in MCC No. 32 of 2023 restoring WPS No. 5030/2012 (earlier dismissed for want of prosecution on 18.11.2022 when counsel failed to appear); cost deposited on 11.04.2025 (Annexure A/3); delay held bona fide and non-prejudicial; MCC allowed and matter restored to original number; State counsel did not oppose.

What did the court decide?

Delay in payment of the Rs. 3,000/- cost (imposed by order dated 25.03.2025 in MCC No. 32 of 2023) condoned; matter restored to its original number. ¶26

Arun Kumar Minj (Dead) through Lrs Smt. Rima Minj Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

2026:CGHC:934

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCC No. 7 of 2026

¶6

1 - Arun Kumar Minj (Dead) Through Lrs Smt. Rima Minj, Wd/o Lt. Arun Kumar Minj, Aged About 27 Years, C/o Shri Shadu Ram, R/o Godhanpur Near Vasundra Vihar Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Ministry of Home (Police), D.K.S Bhawan Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Direct General of Police Police Headquarter Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Inspector General Of Police Surguja Range, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶11

4 - Superintendent Of Police Surajpur District Surajpur (C.G.) 5 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) Odgi, Dist. Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 6 - Reserve Inspector Of Police Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Applicant	: Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent(s)/State	: Ms. N.K. Kashyap, P.L.

¶14

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey,

Order on Board

07.01.2026

The present MCC has been filed seeking condonation of delay in compliance with the order dated 25.03.2025 passed in MCC No. 32 of 2023, whereby WPS No. 5030/2012 was restored, specifically with respect to the delayed payment of costs as directed therein.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the petition i.e. WPS No. 5030 of 2012 was listed for final hearing on 18.11.2022. However, due to an inadvertent and bona fide mistake, the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner could not properly check the cause list and, owing to such unawareness, failed to appear before this Court on the said date. Consequently, the petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 18.11.2022.

¶20

It is further submitted that thereafter the applicant filed an application for restoration of the petition being MCC No. 32/2023, which was duly considered by this Court. Vide order dated 25.03.2025, this Court was pleased to restore the writ petition, subject to removal of defects on the same day and payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/-. It is respectfully submitted that although the applicant removed the defects during the course of the same day, due to unavoidable circumstances, the cost could not be deposited on that very day. The applicant subsequently deposited the cost on 11.04.2025 and the receipt evidencing payment of cost is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A/3 for kind perusal of this Court.

¶21

It is submitted that the default on the part of the applicant was neither deliberate nor intentional, but purely bona fide in nature. No prejudice has been caused to the opposite party on account of the said delay. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court may graciously be

¶22

¶23

pleased to condone the delay in payment of cost and pass such other order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶24

On the other hand, learned State counsel does not oppose the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that the delay in payment of cost, as directed vide order dated 25.03.2025 passed in MCC No. 32 of 2023 was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to bona fide reasons. It is also evident that the cost has subsequently been deposited and no prejudice has been caused to the opposite party on account of the said delay.

¶26

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the delay in payment of cost is hereby condoned. Consequently, the MCC stands allowed, and the matter shall stand restored to its original number.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶29

Ruchi

¶30

RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHIYADAV

Arun Kumar Minj (Dead) through Lrs Smt. Rima Minj v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Minj (Dead) through Lrs Smt. Rima Minj v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Kumar Yadav Vs Mr. Ashutosh Sharma

Rajesh Kumar Sahu Vs Krishna Sahu

Pahal Samajik Vikas, Shiksha Evam Sanskritik Samiti Vs Mahendra Pathak

Ravi Sarthi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gopal Das Varlyani Vs Union Of India

Chhakkulal Vs State of Chhattisgarh