2026:CGHC:11414 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 234 of 2026 Arvind Chandrakar S/o Shri D.S. Chandrakar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Matra Chaya Near Shiv Chowk, 1st Lane Before Sai Kripa Mandir, Raja Talab, Civil And Revenue District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

2 - Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Through The Registrar, Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Raipur Chhattisgarh, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Shri Nishikant Sinha, Advocate appears along with Shri Pavas Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1/: Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. Govt.

State Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate appears along with Ms. Deeksha Pandey, Advocate.

Digitally signed NARESH by NARESH KUMAR K K U AM M D A E R SB: Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawa l KAMDE D 20 a 2 te 6 : .03.11

10:52:51 +0530

Order on Board

10/03/2026 Heard.

1. This petition has been filed for extension of time for payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- as ordered by this Court on 22/11/2024 passed in MCC No.1056/2024 for restoration of WPC No. 533/2015.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that non-payment of cost as ordered by this Court on 22/11/2024 passed in MCC No.1056/2024 was neither within his knowledge, nor to his client and, they were waiting for listing of the said matter after its restoration, but when it was not listed after passing of a considerable long time, then, they made an enquiry from the website, where, it was revealed that the said writ petition was not restored, because of non-compliance of the said order, dated 22/11/2024 passed in MCC No.1056/2024. Further of their contention is that despite the enquiry being made from the office Clerk about depositing the amount of cost, he could not satisfactorily explained the same and, as soon as, it came to their knowledge, the counsel for the petitioner, then, tried to deposit the requisite cost as ordered by this Court, but since there was a stipulation of 30 days time for the said purpose, he, therefore, could not deposit the same, and praying for extension of time to deposit the same while recalling the order dated 22/11/2024 passed in MCC No. 1056/2024.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have opposed the aforesaid contention of the petitioner and submits that since the said writ petition was directed to be restored vide order dated 22/11/2024, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- within a period of 30 days from passing of the said order and as the said period has already been expired much prior to filing of this petition, therefore, the instant petition as framed seeking extension of time deserves to be rejected.

4. From perusal of the record, it appears that the petition, being WPC No.533/2015, was dismissed for non-prosecution on 01/08/2024 and for its restoration, a petition, being MCC No.1056/2024, was filed and, vide order dated 22/11/2024, the same was allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee through its Secretary Member, within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of the said order with a specific direction that, if the same is not complied with, the said petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. It appears that since the direction issued by this Court on 22/11/2024 was not complied with, therefore, the said writ petition was treated to be dismissed and much after passing of the said order, i.e. 22/11/2024, the instant petition has been filed with a plea that since neither the counsel nor the petitioner was aware regarding non-payment of the cost, therefore, it has been prayed for extension of time for doing the needful, but from a bare perusal of the said order dated 22/11/2024 passed in MCC No.1056/2024, it is apparent tha