Tularam Paraste vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 3616 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Tularam Paraste vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2024

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

                                                           1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                              ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                            REVIEW PETITION No. 1223 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           TULARAM PARASTE S/O LATE CHHATELAL PARASTE,
                           AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, VILLAGE GURHA ANJANIA
                           THANA MAHARAJPUR DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI PRANAY CHOUBEY - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 THE    PRINCIPAL    SECRETARY   TRIBAL
                                 DEVELOPMENT      DEPARTMENT    VALLABH
                                 BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    COMMISSIONER       TRIBAL     WELFARE
                                 DEPARTM ENT 2ND FLOOR SATPURA BHAWAN
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TRIBAL WELFARE
                                 D EPARTM EN T MANDLA DISTRICT MANDLA
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    JOINT DIRECTOR TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS
                                 J A B A L P U R DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           5.    BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER BLOCK GHUGHRI
                                 GHUGHRI   DISTRICT   MANDLA   (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission as well as on I.A. this day, the
                           court passed the following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 08-02-2024
14:06:54
                                                              2
                                                              ORDER

Heard on admission as well as on I.A. No.17778/2023, an application seeking condonaton of delay of 2187 days in challenging the order passed by a Coordinate Bench in W.P. No.11542/2014 on 05.10.2017.

In the application seeking condonation of delay, it is mentioned that petitioner is a senior citizen and not keeping good health since long, he cannot move without help of others.

It is also mentioned that through newspaper report, petitioner came to know about the judgment passed in similar case, then it is mentioned that petitioner had instructed the local counsel at Mandla to do the needful and

handed over papers to him but he could not pass on the papers and engage counsel at Jabalpur, then it is mentioned that petitioner's mental and physical condition deteriorated after retirement and on these grounds indulgence is shown.

It is evident that affidavit was notarized at Jabalpur by one Hemlata Choudhar. It means that petitioner had visited Jabalpur for swearing in of the affidavit on 30.10.2023. He has neither produced any medical papers to substantiate his medical condition nor disclose the name of the local counsel at Mandla to whom he had handed over the papers and failed to give papers to the counsel at Jabalpur.

Petitioner was represented in the writ petition by the same counsel namely Shri Pranay Choubey, as is evident from Annexure A-3 dated 05.10.2017. Thus, this practice of shooting over the shoulders of a local counsel making him a villain so to gain sympathy of the Court cannot be appreciated, either name of the counsel is mentioned nor it is mentioned that why the petitioner failed to contact his earlier counsel who is appearing today also before this

Court and, therefore, there being no ground, nonetheless substantial ground or cogent ground to condone the delay.

Application seeking condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, review petition is also dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE MTK