ABID ALI Vs. STATEOF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Restoration application No. 248 of 2018 has been filed with a delay of 1 month 4 days.

(2.) It is the ground taken in the delay condonation application and restoration application that the writ petition was fixed for hearing on 04.01.2018, but the case could not be attended by the counsel for the petitioner, because counsel for the petitioner was busy in Court No. 3 with regard to writ petition No. 585 of 2017 "Dr. Gyan Prakash Rastogi and another vs. SSP, U.S. Nagar and other and also with regard to C482 No. 1746 of 2017" Smt. Sheela Devi vs State and others". As a result of which when the case was called out, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.

(3.) It is further contended that the limitation to file the restoration application was upto 002.2018, but since the petitioner could not come to Nainital from Dehradun, in time, therefore, the restoration application could not be drafted and filed in time. Therefore, there is no deliberate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the restoration application. The paragraph nos. 1 to 5 of the application has been verified in personal knowledge of Abid Ali- petitioner. So it appears that if I go with the averments made in the delay condonation application on the date fixed i.e. 04.01.2018, the petitioner was present in the Court, Therefore, the ground taken that he could not come from Dehradun to Nainital to file restoration application on time, is false.