1 2025:CGHC:56548-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 723 of 2025 Payal Travels Through Partner Piyush Deshlahra S/o Shri Prakash Deshlahra Aged About 38 Years, R/o G.E. Road Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Transport Authority Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - M/s. Kanker Roadway Civil Lines Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.20 17:42:24 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20.11.2025 1. Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant Also heard Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. appearing for the State. 2. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner assailing the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in MCC No. 928 of 2025, whereby the MCC preferred by the appellant/ petitioner came to be dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the writ Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dismissing the restoration application suffers from serious infirmity, as the appellant had clearly explained that W.P.(C) No. 241/2019 came to be dismissed only due to non-payment of process fee, which occurred inadvertently because the counsel’s clerk, despite being instructed and having obtained the 3 appellant’s signatures, failed to deposit the PF, and the appellant as well as his counsel remained under the bona fide impression that it had been paid. It is submitted that neither the appellant nor his counsel had knowledge of the dismissal, and the information regarding the peremptory order was not received by them despite being issued, and it was only during subsequent scrutiny of the case that they discovered the dismissal and immediately filed M.C.C. No. 928/2025 seeking restoration. Counsel contends that the appellant had shown sufÏcient cause for restoration, which was supported by bona fide explanation, but the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate these circumstances and erroneously rejected the application. It is urged that the appellant, being a citizen of India, should not be deprived of adjudication of his rights due to a technical lapse beyond his control, and therefore interference in the present writ appeal is warranted. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the MCC, by the order impugned and has observed as under:- “xxx xxx xxx 5. That instant MCC has been filed after an inordinate 4 delay of 5½ years and no sufÏcient 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.." 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the appeal and submits that the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the restoration application, as no sufÏcient or bona fide cause was shown for the non-payment of process fee or for the appellant’s prolonged inaction. It is argued that negligence of counsel or his clerk cannot justify recalling a peremptory order and that the appellant was expected to act diligently once notice was issued. The reasons now advanced are mere afterthoughts and do not warrant interference with the well-reasoned order of the writ Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 5 material available in the record. 7. Having considered the submissions and the record, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. WPC No.241/2019 was dismissed on 29.01.2019 due to a peremptory order, yet the restoration application (MCC No. 928/2025) was filed only on 04.09.2025, after an inordinate delay of more than 5½ years, for which no sufÏcient or bona fide explanation has been offered. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that such extraordinary delay cannot be condoned, particularly when the reasons assigned are vague, negligent, and fail to establish “sufÏcient cause.” The view of the writ court is fully supported by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649, wherein it has been held in paras 21.9(ix) and 21.10(x) that the conduct, inaction and negligence of a party are relevant considerations and fanciful explanations cannot be accepted. The Supreme Court in Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 685, paras 25–26, has further emphasized that even a liberal interpretation of “sufÏcient cause” must operate within reasonable limits and that valuable rights accrued to the other party cannot be defeated merely on account of the applicant’s negligence or inaction. In the present case, as 6 the learned Single Judge has observed, the matter pertains to a transport permit issued for a specific period and no purpose would be served by restoring a petition long rendered infructuous. We therefore find no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the writ court. 8. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 9. The writ appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib