1 CGHC010298642026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 734 of 2026 M/s. Jaika Automobiles Private Limited Plot No. 84, Industrial Area, Bhilai District- Durg Through Rohit Kale S/o Satish Kale, Aged About 52 Years Director, Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, R/o 5th Dungaji Colony, Behind Anupam Garden G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) And P.S. Azad Chowk Civil And Revenue District- Raipur (C.G.) Through Power Of Attorney Holder And Authorized Signatory Vishal Sharma S/o Shri Vijay Sharma Aged About 39 Years R/o M/s Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Ring Road No. 1, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Commerce And Industries Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner And Appellate Authority, Directorate Of Industries, Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief General Manager, District Trade And Industries Centre, Durg District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant (s) : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap. Dy. G.A. 2 HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL Order on Board 12.08.2026 Heard. 1. This is an application for restoration of WP (C) No. 620 of 2016, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17.11.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 17.11.2025, when the matter was listed for hearing, Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate, appeared and, since there were no instructions from the applicant-Company, he pleaded no instructions, and therefore, the said writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. He would further submit that when the applicant-Company came to know about the dismissal, it contacted its counsel, who then filed the application for restoration of the said writ petition. The cause of action still survives in favour of the applicant, and therefore, the matter may be restored and thereafter heard on merits. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the application. 4. On perusal of the record, it transpires that vide order dated 25.04.2025, when the matter was listed for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the applicant. Thereafter, SPC was ordered to be issued, and pursuant to the said order dated 25.04.2025, the SPC issued to the applicant was served on 05.06.2025. Yet, there 3 was no representation on behalf of the applicant when the matter was called, and the counsel who appeared at that time pleaded no instructions, whereupon the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. Although the counsel who was earlier representing the applicant has pleaded no instructions, considering the issue involved in the writ petition with respect to the allotment of plots under the Industrial Development Policy of the State, I deem it appropriate to recall the order dated 17.11.2025 and restore the writ petition. 5. Accordingly, the application for restoration of the writ petition is allowed, subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 10,000/-, payable by the applicant within two weeks from today before the Registry of this Court. The said amount shall be transmitted to the Government Observation Home, District Raipur (C.G.). Consequently, WPC No. 620 of 2016 is restored to its original number. 6. Accordingly, the MCC is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh