HEM CHAND GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in this application is to set aside this Court's order dated 10.11.1994 and to restore C.W.789/85 which was dismissed for default on 10.11.1994. Consequent to the dismissal of CW 789/85, CMs.4578, 8613/93 also stood dismissed. CM.4578/93 was an application filed by a third party Shri Subash Chand Gupta son of Shri Ram Kumar Gupta praying to implead him as additional petitioner in the writ petition. CM.8613/93 was an application filed by the respondent praying to dismiss the writ petition or to vacate the stay order. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition CW.789/85, the CMs.4578/93 & 8613/93 could not survive and consequently they also stood dismissed on 10.11.1994.

(2.) This application i.e. CM.8794/94 is filed by Shri Subhash Chand Gupta son of Shri Ram Kumar Gupta who had filed CM.4578/93. C.W.789/85 was filed by one Shri Hem Chand Gupta s/o late Shri Kanhaiya Lal and six others challenging the land acquisition proceedings in respect of certain lands Owned by them. Show cause notice to the respondents in CW.789/85 was issued on 10.4.1985 and in CW.1191/85 an interim order was passed staying the dispossession of the petitioners. On 3.9.1985, rule was issued in the writ petition and the interim order was made absolute till the decision of the main petition. Thereafter by CM.4578/93 dated 27.5.1993 Shri Subhash Chand Gupta s/o Shri Ram Kumar Gupta sought to get himself impleaded/added as petitioner in the writ petition. In the said CM.4578/93 notice to the non-applicants was ordered on 31.5.1993. However, the' prayer in CM.4578/93 was never allowed by this Court, even though the said application has been pending. In the meanwhile, CM.8613/93 was filed by respondent No.5 - Delhi Development Authority praying to dismiss the writ petition or to vacate the stay order. In CM.8613/93, notice was ordered on 22.11.1993. It is seen that both the applications CMs.8613/93 and 4578/93 were' posted on 28.1.94, 22.7.94, 08.11.94 and 10.11.1994. On 08.11.1994, there was no representation for the petitioner in the writ petition and, therefore, the case was adjourned to 10.11.1994. On 10.11.1994 also there was no representation for the petitioners in the writ petition. Finding that the petitioners in the writ petition were not interested in persuing the case, the writ petition was dismissed for default on 10.11.1994. Consequent on the dismissal of the writ petition, CMs.4578/93 and 8613/93 did not survive. Therefore, it was ordered that those applications also stood dismissed.

(3.) The present application CM.8794/94 is not filed by the petitioner or any of the respondents in the writ petition. The applicant in CM.8794/94 has no locus standi to approach this Court for restoration of the writ petition, which was filed by someone else. The claim of the applicant is that by filing CM.4578/93 he had sought to get himself impleaded as additional petitioner in the writ petition. I have doubts whether such an application is maintainable. However, in so far as the prayer in CM.4578/93 was not allowed, I need not consider that point at this stage. When a writ petition is dismissed for default only the writ petitione has a right to apply for restoration of the writ petition. A person who is neither a petitioner nor a respondent in the writ petition on the date of dismissal of the writ petition, has no right to apply for restoration of the writ petition. Therefore, the prayer in CM.8794/94 to restore CW.789/85 at the instance of Shri Subhash Chand Gupta cannot be allowed. The prayers for restoration of CM.4578/93 and CM.8613/93 also cannot be allowed since those applications have no survival after the dismissal of the .main writ petition CW.789/85. It may also be mentioned that CM.8613/93 is an application filed not by the present applicant Shri Subhash Chand Gupta but by the Delhi Development Authority - Respondent No.5 praying to dismiss the writ petition or to vacate the stay order.