Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:19539 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 415 of 2025 • M/s Kanker Roadways, Through Its Partner Navsharan Singh Garcha, Aged About 43 Years, S/o Late Pritam Singh Garcha, R/o Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). --- Applicant/Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2. Regional Transport Authority, Bastar Division, Bastar Place At Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). 3. Stayendra Singh Kushwaha, S/o Narsingh Pal Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Shanti Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). --- Respondents AND MCC No. 416 of 2025 • M/s Kanker Roadways, Through Its Partner Navsharan Singh Garcha, Aged About 43 Years, S/o Late Pritam Singh Garcha, R/o Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). --- Applicant/Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2. Regional Transport Authority, Bastar Division, Bastar Place At Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). 3. Alka Gupta, W/o Ganesh Prasad Gupta, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Pratap Ganj Ward, Jain Mandir Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA 2 AND --- Respondents MCC No. 419 of 2025 • M/s Kanker Roadways, Through Its Partner Navsharan Singh Garcha, Aged About 43 Years, S/o Late Pritam Singh Garcha, R/o Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). --- Applicant/Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2. Regional Transport Authority, Bastar Division, Bastar Place At Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). 3. Alka Gupta, W/o Ganesh Prasad Gupta, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Pratap Ganj Ward, Jain Mandir Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents AND MCC No. 408 of 2025 • M/s Kanker Roadways, Through Its Partner Navsharan Singh Garcha, Aged About 43 Years, S/o Late Pritam Singh Garcha, R/o Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). --- Applicant/Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2. Regional Transport Authority, Bastar Division, Bastar Place At Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). 3. Alka Gupta, W/o Ganesh Prasad Gupta, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Pratap Ganj Ward, Jain Mandir Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant/Petitioner For State/Respondents No.1 & 2 For Respondent No.3
Legal Reasoning
upon the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Jyoti Versus General Manager in M.C.C. No. 591 of 2016 dated 13.12.2016, wherein, it has been observed that application filed for restoration of writ petition ought not have been dismissed on the ground of delay, therefore, he prayed that instant all M.C.C. applications may be allowed and all the aforesaid four writ petitions may be restored to its original number. 4. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, who is the 4 main contesting party, would submit that instant M.C.C. applications have been filed after lapse of about 2 years and 1 month and the reasons shown for filing M.C.C. belatedly cannot be held to be bonafide and satisfactory. Hence, instant M.C.C. applications are liable to be rejected. State counsel submits that State is a formal party in all the aforesaid four writ petitions. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record carefully. The instant M.C.C. applications have been filed by the applicant for restoration of aforesaid four writ petitions after about 2 years and 1 month from the date of its dismissal. Reasons shown by the applicant is that he was not aware about the said dismissal of petitions, rather he came to know about the said fact in the month of March, 2025, when respondent No.3 disclosed to him about the said dismissal, which seems that applicant himself was negligent about his cases, as he did not enquire about the fate of his cases from his counsel for about 2 years, therefore, applicant cannot claim for unconditional liberal approach on the account of bonafideness. Though, applicant has filed the M.C.C. applications for restoration belatedly, but filing such applications show that applicant wants to contest the aforesaid writ petitions on merit, therefore, it cannot be said that filing aforesaid restoration applications belatedly, is malafide. Having considered the aforecited order rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Jyoti (supra), I feel inclined to allow all 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. the instant M.C.C. applications, subject to payment of cost. 10. Accordingly, all the four M.C.C., applications for restoration of aforesaid four writ petitions are allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- collectively, which shall be payable by the applicant/petitioner in the account of High Court Legal Aid Committee, within a period of 15 days from today. 5 11. After filing of receipt on this count, Registry is directed to restore all four aforesaid writ petitions, i.e., WP(C) No.1547/2017, WP(C) No.1548/2017, WP(C) No.1549/2017 and WP(C) No.1546/2017 {M/s Kanker Roadways Verus State of Chhattisgarh & Others} to its original number. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge
Arguments
: Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate. : Ms. Mandavi Bhardwaj, P.L. : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate. 3 Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 30/04/2025 1. 2. As the issue involved in all the four cases is similar, therefore, all the above four cases are being heard together and decided by this common order. Heard on M.C.C., applications for restoration of WP(C) No.1547/2017, WP(C) No.1548/2017 and WP(C) No.1549/2017, which were dismissed for want of prosecution vide common order dated 01.08.2022 (Annexure-A/1) and application for restoration of WP(C) No.1546/2017, which was dismissed vide Registry Note dated 04.08.2022, for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that all the four writ petitions were filed by the applicant, out of which, three petitions, i.e., WP(C) No.1547/2017, WP(C) No.1548/2017 and WP(C) No.1549/2017 were dismissed vide common order dated 01.08.2022 (Annexure-A/1) for want of prosecution and remaining one petition, i.e., WP(C) No.1546/2017 was dismissed vide Registry Note dated 04.08.2022 for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He further submits that applicant came to know about the dismissal of aforesaid writ petitions in the last week of March, 2025, when respondent No.3 disclosed about the dismissal of petitions to him. After receiving aforesaid information, instant M.C.C. applications have been filed after the delay of more than two years, which is bonafide. Further, he placed reliance