MOHD NOOR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This writ petition was dismissed in default on 11.05.2010. The restoration application has been filed by the petitioner with delay condonation application.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am not satisfied with the reason furnished in the delay condonation application for non-appearance of his counsel on 11.05.2010. Even if it is assumed that the counsel for the petitioner could not appear before the Court on the date fixed, as the case could not be marked in diary by his clerk, the subsequent delay of 984 days has not been explained properly. There is no affidavit of the clerk of Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate, stating the fact that the case could not be marked by him on that day. The said assertion has been sworn in by the petitioner on the delay condonation application on his personal knowledge. There is nothing on record to suggest that how the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of the writ petition personally. The petitioner miserably failed to satisfy the Court that delay in filing restoration application is bonafide.