Rakesh Kumar Tekam vs Union Of India

This application has been filed for restoration of Writ Petition No. 326/2006 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 27.01.2014. In the said Writ Petition the following reliefs were sought for:-

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that Petitioner is prayed following relief from this Hon’ble Court:-

7.1 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to produce the entire records relating to the case of the petitioner;

7.2 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 10.2.2004 (Annexure P-6) 13.3.2004 (Annexure P-5) passed by Respondent No.3 and appel-late order dated 2.12.2004 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2 by which the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected;

7.3 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to join duty from the date on which he was declared fit i.e. 25.03.2004 along with all conse-quential benefits;

7.4 Any other relief, which Hon’ble Court deems fit, and proper in the circumstances of the case and petition may kindly be allowed with costs.”

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had engaged the counsel to prosecute the Writ Petition and he was appearing also before the Court. However, on 27.01.2014 he could not appear before the Court and therefore the petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. She further submits that the applicant was under the impression that his Writ Petition was being duly represented by the counsel engaged by him but it appears that on the said particular date he could not appear and the petition stood dismissed for want of prosecution. She submits that the applicant not aware of the fact that his Writ Petition stood dismissed nor such information was received by him. She submits that when the applicant came to know about the dismissal of the petition for want of prosecution, after obtaining the proper legal advice and collecting necessary documents, this application for restoration has been filed. Counsel for the applicant relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Rafiq and another v. Munshilal and another (1981) 2 SCC 788 and that of this Court dated 13.12.2016 passed in MCC No. 591/2016 (Smt. Jyoti v. General Manager, Canara Bank) to contend that the delay in filing the application for restoration would not be fatal as there is no limitation prescribed for that. She further submits that in view of this decision, the delay has to be condoned because the case of the petitioner has not been decided on merits.

Counsel for the respondent however submits that though reply has not been filed by the respondents, he is opposing this application for restoration because the applicant should have been vigilant in prosecuting the Writ Petition. He submits that since the petitioner was negligent in prosecuting the Writ Petition which caused a huge delay of about 8 years, this application should be rejected.

After hearing counsel for the parties, perusing the documents filed along with this application,considering the judgments cited by the counsel for the applicant, and keeping in mind the fact that the writ petition of the applicant has not been decided on merits as yet, ends of justice would be served if one opportunity is given to him to prosecute his writ petition on merits. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the Writ Petition No. 326/2006 is restored to its original number subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1000/- to the respondents within a period of 15 days, receipt of which to be filed before the Registry of this Court. If cost is not paid within the stipulated period, this order would lose its efficacy.