MCC No.2406.08
M. C. C. No. 2406 of 2008
13/10/2010
Shri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Heard on admission.
Present is an application for restoration of W rit
Petition No. 4097/04 which was dismissed on 05-11-2008.
By order dated 05-11-2008 it was held :
“Ms. Anjali Banerjee and Shri Rajesh
Pandey, Advocates on behalf of the
petitioner.
An order was passed on 14-10-04, a
condition of depositing cost of Rs. 2,000/-
was imposed. P.F. was not paid, as such
the interim order was vacated on 8-11-04.
On 24-11-04, again an opportunity was
given to pay the P.F. within 15 days
failing which the writ petition shall stand
dismissed. Still, the P.F. was not paid.
The writ petition was dismissed.
Thereafter, MCC No. 772/06 has been
filed. Case has been restored. However,
the P.F. has not been paid in spite of
another opportunity having been granted
on 23-3-07.
In the circumstances, writ petition is
dismissed due to non-payment of P.F. for
last more than four years.”
Though it is contended by the learned counsel for
the applicant that the default on part of the
applicant/petitioner was not deliberate and that the
applicant/petitioner is ready to pay process fee and
interested in prosecuting the matter; however, we
MCC No.2406.08
observe from the record of W rit Petition No. 4097/04 that
the applicant/petitioner was never diligent in prosecuting
the matter. It is observed that the petition was dismissed
for non-compliance of order dated 24-11-2004 but was
later on restored vide order dated 07-08-2006 passed in
M.C.C. No. 772/06. After restoration when the matter
was posted on 23-03-2007, no-one appeared for the
petitioner and despite of that opportunity was granted to
remove the defect of process fee within a week. As the
record reveals that no steps were taken by the applicant/
petitioner to remove the defect when on 05-11-2008 this
Court was constrained to dismiss the petition keeping in
view the lackadaisical approach of the
applicant/petitioner.
The record of present M.C.C. also reveals that the
same was dismissed on 05-01-2009 as no-one appeared
for the applicant. The M.C.C. was, however, restored vide
order dated 06-02-2009 passed in M. C. C. No. 125 of
2009.
Keeping in view the entire facts on record we are
not inclined to recall the order dated 05-11-2008.
(AJIT SINGH) (SANJAY YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
SC