Chhattisgarh High Court
MCC/637/2026 of M/s BAJRANG MEDICAL STORE Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 12 July 2026
2026:CGHC:29364 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 637 of 2026 M/s Bajrang Medical Store, Store Address -Maharani Hospital Road Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh Through Its Proprietor Rajendra Rai, Presently Aged About 74 Years, S/o Late Shri Kedarnath Rai, R/o
CGHC010269392026
2026:CGHC:29364
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCC No. 637 of 2026
M/s Bajrang Medical Store, Store Address -Maharani Hospital Road Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh Through Its Proprietor Rajendra Rai, Presently Aged About 74 Years, S/o Late Shri Kedarnath Rai, R/o House Of Bajrang Medical Store, Church Road, Shanti Nager, Jagdalpur, District Bastar C.G.
... Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department Mahandi Bhawan New Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Joint Secretary (Cum Appellate Authority) State Of Chhattisgarh, Health And Family, Welfare Department Mantralaya, Indrawati, Bhawan New, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Licensing Authority, Drug And Cosmetic Administration, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 4 - Drug Inspector, In The Office Of Deputy Director, Drug And Cosmetic Administration, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Applicant
:
Shri Shobhit Koshta, Advocate.
For Respondents/State
:
Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate.
SB: Hon'ble Shri Justic
e Sanjay S. Agrawal
Order on Board
13/07/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard on I.A. No.1/2026, an application for condonation of delay of 625 days in filing this petition.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant was regularly appearing in the said petition, i.e. WPC No.1697/2016, but on account of sad demise of the original counsel in the year 2022 and the applicant, who is aged about 74 years, is suffering from serious ailments, due to which, he could not perform the day-to-day activities related to the store and, his wife, namely, Tara Rai has also died on 23/09/2024 and, stated further that before three months from her death, she was undergoing extensive medical treatment, owing to which, the applicant, who is an old person, was not able to contact his counsel and due to non-communication, he was not aware that the said petition has already been dismissed by this Court for non-prosecution vide order dated 17/09/2024. It is contended further that the affairs of the store are now being managed by son of the proprietor, i.e. applicant, namely, Sunil Kumar Rai, who on 08/07/2026 has received the notice dated 06/07/2026 (Annexure-A/2) issued by the respondent-authorities, whereby, it was communicated that since the petition filed by him has already been dismissed on 17/09/2024 and, therefore, in compliance of the earlier order, he was directed to dispose all the stock of the medicine within a period of seven days.
3. It is contended further that only after receiving the said notice on 08/07/2026, the applicant came to know about the dismissal of the claim and immediately after knowing the said fact as such, an application for obtaining the certified copy of the said order was made by him on 09/07/2026 and in pursuance thereof, it was delivered on the said day itself and, on the next day, the instant petition has been filed. It is, therefore, contended by the counsel appearing for the applicant that the delay, which has been occurred bonafidely in filing this petition be condoned, in the interest of justice.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State while opposing the said application submits that there has been an inordinate delay in filing the present petition, which has not been explained in its proper manner, therefore, the application as framed deserves to be rejected.
5. Having considered the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay in filing this petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, I am inclined to allow the same. The application is allowed and delay is, accordingly, condoned.
6. Also heard on admission.
7. For the reasons assigned in the application for restoration of the said petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, I am inclined to allow the same. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and, the WPC No.1697/2016 “M/s Bajrang Medical Store vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others”, is directed to be restored to its original number. No order as to cost. Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
JUDGE Kamde