Dr. S.L. Adile v. Dr. S. L. Adile
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Resultantly, the application is allowed to the above
Judgment
State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Bhawan, [Now Mantralaya, Raipur (CG.)] Mahanadi (Respondent no. 2) '^^^ ^as!l'.. -e's"pondent no. 3) '^"" VERSUS RESPONDENT (Petitioner) The Under Secretary, Health Department, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG.) Bhawan, (CG.)] .Govt. Family Welfare D.K.S. Bhawan, [Now Mahanadi Raipur Mantralaya, The Deputy Secretary, Health Department, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG.) Bhawan, (CG.)] Govt. Family Welfare D.K.S. Bhawan, [Now Mahanadi Raipur Mantralaya,
Dr. S.L. Adile, S/o Late Shri J.R. Adile, Aged about 55 years, R/o 113, Guru Ghasidas Colony, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (CG.) P-S, C.i\l il li-ne- fSoji'pu-i^C-fr)- APPLICATION FOR SEEKING EXTENSION OE_TIME TO COMPLY 'WITH •'- 3<s[^> AS— THE ORDER DATED 06/05/r2UT2~) PASSED BY THE ^.., HON'BLE SINGLE BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. fS) N0. 5392/2010 PARTIES BEING "DR. S.L. ADHILE VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND 3 OTHERS". G) Q HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. C. C. No. 572 of 2013 Applicants State of Chhattisgarh 8s others Versus Respondent Dr. S. L. Adile APPLICATOIN FOR EXTENTION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER DATED 6.5.2013 PASSED IN W.P.(S) N0. 5392/2010 SB: Hon'ble Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the applicants. Shri Mateen Siddique, Advocate foii'the respondent. .
Operative part
O R D E R (orall ( Passed on this 19U1 day of July, 2013 ) ' (1) This M.C.C. is filed by the applicant^/State for extension of time to comply with the order dated 6.5.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5392/2010. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that after (2) the order was passed by this Court though the applicants are inaking their efforts to decide the matter, however, upon perusing all the relevant circumstances, subsequent developments and other aspects of the matter some more time is likely to be consumed. He further submits that the applicants have all intention to comply with the order of the Court at the earliest possible course, but some more time may be granted within which the matter would be definitely decided. (3) On the other hand, learned counsel respondent submits that the applicants are unnecessarily delaying the matter despite the time bound direction of this Court. He further submits that this applicadon has been ^SWls r^-^f^ filed to save the applicants from the clutches of contempt petition filed by the respondent. Therefore, prayer may be rejected. Taking into consideration totality of circumstances, (4) particularly, the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants that the 45 days time, which was allowed by this Court earlier, is already over and further taking into consideration that the applicants have prayed for one tiine extension to comply with the order, I am inclined to allow the application. Therefore, the applicants shall is directed that (5) comply with the order by passing appropriate order, as per latest by 15th of direction given by this Court earlier, August, 2013. It is inade clear that no further extension would be (6) 'granted and the applicants should decide the matter . expeditiously. Resultantly, the application is allowed to the above (7) exteit.-', (8) No cost. Thakur i Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge 'IKB^';
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.