State Of M.P. And Another vs Snehal Bidkon Pvt. Ltd.

The applicants has filed the present application for review of the order dated 25/04/2017 as well as peremptory order dated 23/06/2017 passed in

W.P. No.1336/2017.

Learned Government Advocate for the applicants/State submit that this writ petition has been dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory

order passed by this Court on 25/04/2017. Thereafter, this MCC has been filed for restoration of W.P. No.1336/2017 alongwith an application for

condonation of delay.

As per Office note, this application for restoration is barred by 792 days.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the applicants/State argued that the delay in filing this restoration application is bonafide one and deserves to be

condoned. He further submits that after filing writ petition, the OIC of this case was transferred and a new person was posted on the post of earlier

OIC, who was having no knowledge about the present writ petition, hence because of non-communication and in the absence of knowledge of the

petition, the writ petition was dismissed in default. He further argued that after dismissal of the writ petition on 25/04/2017, the OIC of the case was

busy in preparation of voter-list and then subsequent assignments, therefore, the delay in filing this application for restoration be allowed.

Learned counsel for the non-applicant has vehemently opposed the prayer submitting that no day-to-day delay is explained in the application for

condonation of delay. He relied on the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media

India Limited and another (2012) 3 SCC 563 wherein in para 26 it has been held that the other dates mentioned in the affidavit clearly shows that

there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such

delay had occasioned.

In the present case also from perusal of the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as affidavit filed alongwith this

application, no day-to-day delay has been explained by the applicants/State for causing inordinate delay in filing this restoration application.

Thus, in view of the above and in the absence of any ground/reason to contone the delay of 792 days, the application for condonation of delay

stands dismissed. Consequently, this MCC is also dismissed.