Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2640 (CHH)

V.K. SHARMA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF CHHATTISGARH)

MCC/28/2025 · 2025-04-04

Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:15950 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 28 of 2025 1 - V.K. Sharma S/o Late Shri S.N. Sharma Aged About 41 Years Labour Welfare Inspector (Water Resource Department) (Now Retired) R/o Rudri, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (M.P.) (Now C.G.) Permanent Address 01, Patar Pura, Ward No. 17 Ganj Basoda, Vidisha Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now State Of Chhattisgarh) Through The Secretry.(Irrigation Department), Water Resource Department Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (Now State Of Chhattiasgarh Through The Secretary, (Irrigation Department) Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh) 2 - Engineering In Chief, Water Resource Departmet, Government Of M.P. Bhopal, (Now Engineer In Chief, Water Resource Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh Sector 19, Shivnath Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh) 3 - Mahesh Kumar Dubey Labour Welfare Officer, (Gr.Ii), Office Of The Engineering-In-Chief, Water Resource Department Bhopal ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 04/04/2025 Heard. 1. The petitioner is seeking restoration of Writ Petition (S) No. 1057 of 2005, which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 29th October, 2009. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Original Application No. 431 / 1995 was filed by the petitioner before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) at Jabalpur. After reorganization of State of Chhattisgarh, the said case was transferred to the High Court of Chhattisgarh, but it was not in the knowledge of the petitioner, as such, he could not appear on 29.10.2009, when the case was taken-up for hearing, therefore, the case {WPS No. 1057 of 2005} was dismissed for want of prosecution. He further submits that the petitioner was waiting for notice, but he did not get any notice and on being enquired about the case, he came to know about dismissal of the petition in the year 2024, and, thereafter, instant MCC has been filed for restoration of Writ Petition (S) No. 1057 of 2005, which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 29th October, 2009. 3. On due consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the grounds taken in the restoration petition, I am satisfied that the absence of the petitioner’s counsel on 29.10.2009 when WPS No. 1057 of 2005 was taken-up for hearing and filing belated MCC was based on bona fide grounds. 4. Accordingly, M.C.C. is allowed and WPS No. 1057 of 2005 is restored to its original number. 5. Certified copy, as per rules. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.04.09 17:20:31 +0530 3