1 2026:CGHC:5122-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 71 of 2026 Mukesh Kumar Aarde S/o Shri Ratan Lal Aarde Aged About 38 Years Ex. Constable- 363, 4th Battalion, Caf Mana Raipur, Resident Of Village Bhirangaon, P.S. Bhanupratappur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Avar Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director General Of Police Home (Police) Department, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Additional Director General Of Police Battalion Police Head Quarter New Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Commandant 4th Battalion, Caf, Mana Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Vinod Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents/ State: Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Adv. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30/01/2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01 i.e. application for condonation of delay in JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.01.31 10:31:34 +0530 2 filing the MCC. 2. This MCC has been filed for restoration of MCC No. 472/2025 which was dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court vide order dated 13.06.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the previous MCC was listed on 13.06.2025 for restoration of W.A. No. 546/2024, however, due to inadvertent oversight on the part of the applicant, he could not appear before this Court and, consequently, the MCC was dismissed for want of prosecution. He further submits that the lapse was bona fide and prays for restoration of the MCC. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant. 5. On due consideration and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that W.A. No. 546 of 2024 was dismissed on merits as learned counsel for the appellant remained absent despite repeated calls to press the appeal. Thereafter, MCC No. 472/2025 was filed seeking restoration of the said writ appeal, however, learned counsel for the applicant again remained absent and the MCC was dismissed for want of prosecution. The present MCC has now been filed seeking restoration of MCC No. 472/2025, with a delay of 175 days. 6. Having considered the submissions made and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no sufficient cause to condone the delay and to restore MCC No. 472/2025. The record reflects repeated negligence on the part of the applicant, inasmuch as W.A. No. 546/2024 was dismissed on merits due to non-appearance 3 despite repeated calls, and the subsequent MCC No. 472/2025 was also dismissed for want of prosecution for the same reason. The present MCC has been filed after an unexplained delay of 175 days and the explanation offered is vague and does not inspire confidence. In the absence of any satisfactory or bona fide justification, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction for restoration. 7. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 is rejected and consequently the present MCC is also dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti