BALRAM TIWARI Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition was filed through Sri C. P. Ghildyal, the learned counsel of the petitioners, more than eleven years ago, to be precise, on 29.9.1988, and was admitted on the same day. The order-sheet indicates that after the lapse of an interminable period of more than eight years, it came up before the Court for hearing on 17th October. 1996. On that date, the learned counsel, then appearing for the petitioners, sent illness-slip praying for adjournment of the case. Consequently, the hearing of the case was adjourned. Next time it came up before the Court on 14th November. 1996. Again the hearing of the case was adjourned for two weeks at the behest of the learned counsel of the petitioners. Thereafter the petition came up for hearing on 4th December. 1996. Unfortunately, the hearing of the case had to be adjourned again on the illness-slip of the counsel of the petitioners praying for adjournment of the hearing.

(2.) Eventually, on 3.1.1997 the learned counsel of the petitioners appeared before the Court and made a statement to the effect that on account of events subsequent to filing of the writ petition, the petition had become infructuous. Thus, the petition was dismissed as infructuous.

(3.) After lapse of more than two and a half years, the petitioners woke up to move Civil Misc. Application No. 62975 of 1999 through a new counsel, namely, Sri K. K. Singh, praying that the order of the Court dated 3.1.1997 be recalled and the petition be restored to its original number for decision on merit. The application being, obviously, belated is accompanied by delay condonation application No. 62974 of 1999 praying for condonation of delay in moving the restoration application. A common affidavit sworn by Jagat Singh, the petitioner No. 2, has been filed in support of the restoration as well as delay condonation application.