Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 7]

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Pratibha Jha vs State Of Chhattisgarh 78 Wpc/76/2019 ... on 9 January, 2019

Author: P. Sam Koshy

Bench: P. Sam Koshy

                                           1

                                                                           NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                 MCC No. 6 of 2019

             Smt. Pratibha Jha D/o Shri Bramhendra Jha, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
             Ward No. 08, Turkari Para, Main Road Khairagarh, District
             Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                   ---Applicant
                                          Versus
       1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural
          Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
       2. Joint Director, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Raipur,
          District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
       3. District Education Officer, Education Department, Rajnandgaon,
          District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
       4. Assistant Commissioner, Tribunal Welfare Department, Rajnandgaon,
          District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
       5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Rajnandgaon, District-
          Rajnandgaon, Chhattistgarh.
       6. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Khairagarh, District
          Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
                                                               ---Respondents

For applicant : Shri Naveen Shukla, Advocate. For State : Ms. Sunita Jain, Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 09/01/2019

1. The present MCC has been filed seeking restoration of MCC No. 801/2018 which got disposed off on a peremptory order passed by this Court on 26/10/2018.

2. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that, due to inadvertence and on account of personal inconvenience at the counsel's 2 end, the default in the MCC No. 801/2018 could not be removed and therefore prays for its restoration.

3. Subject to the counsel for the applicant removing the default within a further period of 3 days from today in MCC No. 801/2018, the instant MCC stands allowed.

4. No order as to costs.

Sd/-


                                                         (P. Sam Koshy)
Sumit                                                        JUDGE