GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS intra -court appeal impugns the order dated 15th May, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of the applications, being CM Nos. 17965/2012 and 15521/2013 filed for restoration of the W.P.(C) No. 8210/2003 (filed by the appellant) dismissed in default on 27th August, 2010 and for condonation of delay in applying therefor. The appeal also impugns the order dated 1st August, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of dismissal of the application filed by the appellant for review of the order dated 15th May, 2014. Though the appeal was listed from time to time but no notice thereof was issued. We heard the counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner on 22nd January, 2015. The counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice was also heard on that date.

(2.) THE writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed on 25th September, 2003 and came up first for consideration on 5th December, 2003 when notice thereof was issued. Vide order dated 11th March, 2004, the counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondents were directed to file synopsis on the legal question entailed in the writ petition, of entitlement if any of the appellant / writ petitioner to interest, supported with authorities, within two weeks thereof. While the appellant / writ petitioner filed the synopsis, the counsel for the respondents sought time and owing whereto the hearing could not take place. Thereafter also the counsel for the respondents sought time and the learned Single Judge on 6th August, 2004 issued 'Rule' in the writ petition; though the writ petition was still ordered to be listed on actual date for hearing in the category of 'After Notice Miscellaneous Matters' but was again adjourned from time to time. Vide order dated 17th August, 2005, again 'Rule' was issued and the writ petition was ordered to be listed in the category of "Regulars" as per its turn. The writ petition thereafter came up first for hearing after little more than five years on 27th August, 2010 when none appeared for either of the parties and the writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution.

(3.) THE said applications were taken up for hearing on 15th May, 2014 when they were dismissed, observing that restoration had been sought after 26 months from the date of dismissal and that no documents of illness of the wife of the appellant / writ petitioner or of the financial resources of the appellant / writ petitioner had been annexed to the application and restoration would work to the prejudice of the respondents as they would be liable to pay interest even for the period the appellant / writ petitioner was negligent in seeking restoration of the writ petition.