ARADHNA ALIAS SADHANA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant contended that when the matter was placed as "unlisted" on 20th April, 2006, it was not known to him. Accordingly, the matter was dismissed. Therefore, the same is a good ground for the purpose of restoration of the writ petition.

(2.) PRACTICE of this High Court is to make a computerized list of urgent matters in addition to main cause list which is usually called "unlisted". It is not "unlisted" as such. It is being pasted on the Notice Board outside the Court room. Learned Advocate being regular practitioner of this Court cannot take such plea for restoration of the matter. He has to be well conversant with the practice of the. Court. Therefore, the application stands dismissed.

(3.) COMPUTERISED list, i. e. , "unlisted" is virtually a supplementary or additional list. Therefore, similar nomenclature should be uniformaly maintained to avoid the confusion. Court is concerned about fulfillment of principle of audi alteram partem. Therefore, minimum time schedule is to be maintained for printing and publication of such list so that everyone can become ready about hearing of such matters to fulfill the requirement of such placement.