Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 649 (MP)

C. L. Shukla v. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi

2011-06-20

SANJAY YADAV

body2011
JUDGMENT : Heard. This M.C.C. is for restoration of Writ Petition No. 5083/2002, which was dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 07-11-2002. The applicant/petitioner was working as Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi, has filed the Writ Petition No. 5083/2002 challenging the order dated 29-03-2001 and the order dated 08-01-2002. By order dated 29-03-2001 the petitioner was inflicted the penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect. The said order of punishment was upheld in appeal by the appellate authority by its order dated 08-01-2002. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition No. 5083/2002, which was posted for admission on 20-09-2002 wherein notices were directed to be issued on petitioner's paying the process fee within a period of seven days. The petitioner admittedly, did not pay the process fee within seven days. The petition was posted on 07-11-2002 to remind the petitioner the default committed by him. On 07-11-2002 the petitioner was granted again seven days' time to remove the default, failing which it was directed that the petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. Admittedly, the peremptory order was not complied with by the petitioner and the petition stood dismissed and was allowed to remain so till 2010 when the petitioner who had already retired from service in the year 2005 suddenly woke up and filed M.C.C. No. 738/2010, an application for restoration of Writ Petition No. 5083/2002. Since no explanation was tendered by the petitioner regarding the delay of eight years, he preferred to withdraw the M.C.C. No. 738/2010 with a liberty to file a fresh application with correct facts. On the strength of the aforesaid liberty granted to the petitioner present M.C.C. No. 793/2011 has been filed on 16-05-2011. The explanation tendered by the petitioner regarding the delay in filing the restoration application is that he was suffering from Neuro Problem which has adversely effected his memory and for that he has been undergoing treatment. It is further contended that the petitioner retired from service on 31-01-2005 and when he came to Jabalpur on 07-06-2011 to know about the progress of the case then he came to know that for certain requirements like affidavit, vakalatnama etc. necessary action could not be taken to pursue the case. This statement of the petitioner run contrary to the facts on record. necessary action could not be taken to pursue the case. This statement of the petitioner run contrary to the facts on record. Firstly, that in the year 2010 the petitioner had already preferred M.C.C. No. 738/2010, which was withdrawn on 14-05-2010 with a liberty to file properly constituted application with correct facts and secondly, the documents in support of the contention raised by the petitioner that he has been suffering from Neuro Problem does not support the case of the petitioner. The documents which the petitioner has filed pertains to his ailment regarding Cervico-Dorsal Spine from C1 to D1 vertebra and regarding Hiatus Hernia Grade-IV and for ischemic heart disease. There is no document on record to support the contention of the petitioner that he has been suffering from Neuro Problem. When put to query, learned counsel for the petitioner is also unable to demonstrate. The petitioner thus has not come up with clean hands. Since there is no cogent explanation tendered by the petitioner regarding the delay of eight years in filing the application for restoration of Writ Petition No. 5083/2002, the same cannot be entertained. In view whereof, the application for restoration of Writ Petition No. 5083/2002 fails and is hereby dismissed. However, no costs.