1 2025:CGHC:60649 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 1147 of 2024 Arjun Das S/o Shri Gopaldas, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Mashanganj Bilaspur, P.S. - Civil Line Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development, New Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Dy. Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Office In Charge Market Department Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Bhojraj Narwani S/o Late L.M. Narwani, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Near Head Post Office Tilaknagar, P.S. - Civil Line, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6 - Vishnu Hirwani S/o Late Gullumal Hirwani, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Juna Bilaspur, P.S. - City Kotwali Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey, Advocate appears along with Ms. Sonia Kuldeep, Advocate. For Non-Applicant No.1/State : Mr. Ratan Pusty, Govt. Advocate. For Non-Applicants No. 2, 3 & 4 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant No.5 : Mr. Vipin Panjabi, Advocate For Non-Applicant No.6 : None, though served SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.12.12 17:53:03 +0530 2 Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal Order on Board 12.12.2025 1) Heard on admission. 2) This M.C.C. has been filed for restoration of WPC No.614 of 2016, which was dismissed in default by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2024. 3) Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that on 24.01.2024, counsel for the Petitioner, namely, Shri Neel Kanth Malviya did not appears before this Court, as he was engaged before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at the relevant point of time and could not appear in the matter when it was called in second round of hearing, therefore, the matter was dismissed for want of prosecution on 24.01.2024. It is, therefore, contended that the Applicant may not be penalized on account of the default of his earlier counsel and in the interest of justice, the said petition may kindly be restored to its original number. 4) Learned counsel for the Non-Applicant No. 5, while opposing the petition, submits that since the delay has not been explained properly, therefore, the instant petition as framed, deserves to be dismissed. 5) Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and, that by considering further the reasons assigned therein, which is duly supported by an affidavit, I am inclined to allow the same. 3 6) Accordingly, the instant M.C.C. is allowed and the writ petition, being WPC No.614 of 2016, dismissed in default vide order dated 24.01.2024, is directed to be restored to its original number, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee, through its Secretary Member, within a period of 10 working days from today. 7) The M.C.C. is, thus, disposed of with the aforesaid direction. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge sunita