1 2025:CGHC:46457 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 928 of 2025 1 - Payal Travels Through - Partner Piyush Deshlahra S/o Shri Prakash Deshlahra Aged About 38 Years, R/o G.E Road Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Transport Authority Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - M/s. Kanker Roadway Civil Lines Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.1. : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 11/09/2025 1. This MCC has been preferred by the applicant/petitioner seeking restoration of WPC No.241 of 2019 (Payal Travels vs. State Transport Authority and another) in which the applicant/petitioner has sought following relief(s) : RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.09.12 18:30:05 +0530 2 “(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order dated 30.11.2018 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Matter of WPC No.241/2019 pertains to permit issued in respect of vehicle/Bus for public transportation, which was dismissed on the basis of peremptory order dated 29.01.2019 and instant MCC has been filed on 04.09.2025 i.e. after delay of 5½ years. Filing of restoration application after such a huge delay cannot be over- looked particularly when no sufficient cause is shown for filing of application after such a huge delay. 3. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649 has held in paragraphs 21.9(ix) and 21.10(x) as under :- “21.9.(ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance or justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10.(x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts 3 should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.” 4. In another case, the Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh reported in (2010) 8 SCC 685 in paragraphs 25 and 26 has observed as under : - “25. We may state that even if the term ‘sufficient cause’ has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of ‘reasonableness’ as it is understood in its general connotation. 26. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly.” 4 5. In instant case, as has been observed in preceding paragraphs that instant MCC has been filed after an inordinate delay of 5½ years and no sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant/petitioner to condone the delay in filing of MCC. Further, matter pertains to issuance of permit to vehicle/Bus for public transportation, which was issued for a specific period. 6. Having considered aforesaid facts, I do not feel inclined to condone inordinate delay of 5½ years in filing MCC for restoration of WPC No.241/2019. Therefore, instant MCC deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi