JABALPUR, India, Nov. 13 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Oct. 13:

1. By this application, petitioner seeks restoration of the petition that was dismissed by a peremptory order dated 13.03.2020. Subject petition has been filed on 08.08.2025. The petition has been filed after a delay of 1974 days as per the office report. Since the period of limitation expired during the Covid-19 period, the Registry has calculated the exemption granted by the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020 and given a credit of 718 days to the petitioner for the said period and thereafter, noticed that the petition is barred by 1166 days.

2. In the application seeking condonation of delay, petitioner has mentioned that on 18.02.2022 he had suffered a mild heart attack and thereafter was admitted in hospital and angioplasty surgery was carried out and he was discharged on 22.02.2022. Petitioner contends that thereafter operation blues carried on till mid 2023 and he was incapacitated both physically and financially and due to his old age he could not approach the Court. Thereafter, he stated that in mid of 2024 he further suffered knee joint pain and had to undertake treatment and undergo physiotherapy on account of which delay took place in filing the present petition.

3. On question by the Court, petitioner states that he is a consultant and provides consultancy services to various construction agencies and builders and he concedes that in the last six years he has continued with his profession and has also been filing income tax return and paying tax.

4. The above observation clearly shows that petitioner was not prevented from approaching the Court and taking steps for restoration of the petition. Petitioner has even annexed copies of RTI applications and replies received which show that petitioner was conscious and actively participating in the legal process. Further, we may note that in the subject petition which is styled as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents primarily seeking general awareness of The Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 as also of Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005.

5. We are of the view that petitioner has failed to sufficiently explain the delay in filing the restoration application. We are not satisfied with the explanation rendered seeking condonation of delay 1166 days in filing the petition. Consequently, the application seeking condonation of delay (I.A.No.17688/2025) and the restoration petition are hereby dismissed.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.