MD. NUR UDDIN Vs. CHAIRMAN/MEMBER, ILLEGAL MIRGRANTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant in the aforesaid two Misc. Applications is the writ petitioner. While by the said two MCs, the writ petitioner has prayed for restoration of the writ petition by recalling the order dated 8.6.2005, by which the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, in the writ petition the prayer made is to set aside and quash the judgment and order dated 22.6.2000 passed by the IM(D)T, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, in case NO. IMDT/H/165/98(D), by which the petitioner was declared to be not a citizen of India but an illegal migrant. The writ petition was filed on 31.10.2000 and by order dated 3.11.2000, the same was entertained with the direction to the petitioner to serve notice on the respondent No. 1 and 2 by registered post. However, it appears from the notes furnished by the Registry that the petitioner did not take steps for long more than five years. In this connection, the office notes dated 3.1.2003, 17.2.2004, 23.6.2004, 28.6.2004, 10.12.2004, 13.12.2004, 17.1.2005 and 21.3.2005 may be referred to, by which either it was indicated that steps for service of notice on respondents No. 1 and 2 was not taken or the petitioner was granted time to do so.

(2.) The writ petition was dismissed for default on 8.6.2005. After 7(seven) years thereafter, the petitioner has filed MC NO. 126/2012 and 127/2012. While in MC 126/2012, the prayer is to restore the writ petition upon setting aside the order dated 8.6.2005, in MC 127/2012 the prayer made is to condone the delay of 2374 days in preferring the MC 126/2012, seeking restoration of the writ petition.

(3.) The basis ground on which the delay condonation petition has been filed is that the petitioner was not aware of the order dated 8.6.2005, by which the writ petition was dismissed. Attributing negligence to the engaged counsel it has been stated that the said counsel did not intimate the petitioner about the said order and/or the outcome of the writ petition.