✦ Chhattisgarh High Court

Inspector, B v. State

W.P No. 1119 of 2003N K AGARWAL

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 44. Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur. APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, DISMISSED IN DEFAULT ON 03.10.2013. ncc' /o^s'/.tl ;^;.g^ ^?fii^a -^ign •§-i|%';:i SBTOfe-"1? VWl ^ f€CS ^RpT ^ ^'^^ ^s^, Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Aaarwai T 12.11.2013 j…

Judgment

53 years, son of Late Shri Inspector, B. L. Hariharano, C.I.D., P.H.Q. Raipur (C.G.), resident of quarter number 5A Street No.33, Sector 7, Bhilai Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS ^^ ,y -ie^ ^®- •"" !ft: RESPONDENTS

1.

State Chhattisgarh, <r" through: Secretary, Home Department (Police) D.K.S. Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.)

2.

Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh.

3.

Inspector General of Police, »- Surguja Range, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Inspector General of Police,

4.

Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur. APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, DISMISSED IN DEFAULT ON 03.10.2013. ncc' /o^s'/.tl ;^;.g^ ^?fii^a -^ign •§-i|%';:i SBTOfe-"1? VWl ^ f€CS ^RpT ^ ^'^^ ^s^, Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Aaarwai T 12.11.2013 j j ' Mr. PKC TBvari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shashi Bhushaa, Counsel for fh.e apyKcaat. 1 Heard ou the applicatton (MCC No. 1038/2013) for restoratiou of W.P. No.ll 19/^003. The applicant is see^iag restoranon of W.P. No.ll 19/2003, which wa^ prosecuuon on 03.10.2013. dismissed for want of On due consideration dfthe submissions of leamed counsel for the applicant arjd the grounds taken ia tbe restoration appUcation, I am satisfied that fh.e absence of r.p. applicant's counsel on p3.IO.2013 when No.ll 19/2003 was taken uji for hearmg was based on bonafide grdunds. MCC No.1038/2013, ttjierefore, is allowed aad W.P. No. 1119/2003 is restored to ijts origmal aumber. A copy of fhis order [be placed on record of the -origm.al file and the same be ysted for hearmg. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^Tftl^t'V^^I ^<inWf,a51-IR*)14—FS/4&—8/2012—80,000. l^ 1

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Chhattisgarh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. W.P No. 1119 of 2003). ← Search more judgments