Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2096 (HP)

Mukesh Singh v. Union of India

2016-09-29

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, SANDEEP SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. CMP(M) No. 77 of 2016. This application has been moved by the applicant/petitioner for condonation of 6 years, two months’ and 7 days’ delay in filing the application for restoration of the writ petition. 2. Mr. Ashok Sharma, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, stated at the Bar that it is a fact that licence of Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate, who was representing the petitioner, was suspended for five years. His statement is taken on record. Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate, who is present in the Court stated that it is a fact that his licence was suspended, was not in a position to inform his client. His statement is also taken on record. 3. Learned counsel had to inform the petitioner about his non-availability. 4. Keeping in view the fact that the licence of the counsel was suspended, is sufficient cause, as defined in terms of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay. 5. The apex Court in case titled Brijesh Kumar and others versus State of Haryana and others reported in 2014 AIR SCW 1831, Maniven Devraj Shah versus Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2412, Balwant Singh (Dead) versus Jagdish Singh and others reported in AIR 2010 SC 3043 and Ram Nath Sao @ Sahu and others versus Govardhan Sao and others reported in AIR 2002 SC 1201 , has laid down the principles of law when the delay can be condoned and the ratio of the said judgments is that the petitioner should not be deprived of his legitimate right, on account of delay only. Applying the ratio and keeping in view the facts of the case, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the application for restoration of the writ petition is condoned. The application is disposed of. CMP No. 1017/2016 6. Granted. The writ petition is restored to its original number. CWP No. 1111/2008 7. The writ petition is taken on Board. Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate, waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 8. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, stated at the Bar that case is to be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh. 9. Accordingly, the petition is transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh. Parties through their counsel to appear before the Tribunal on 7th November, 2016.