Nagendra Narain Misra vs State Of U.P.Through Secy.
2013 Latest Caselaw 1282 ALL

Citation : 2013 Latest Caselaw 1282 ALL
Judgement Date : 24 April, 2013

Allahabad High Court

Nagendra Narain Misra vs State Of U.P.Through Secy. on 24 April, 2013

Bench: Pankaj Mithal




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 23
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 694 of 1997
 

 
Petitioner :- Nagendra Narain Misra
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secy.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- S.P.Shukla,Dr.Manoj Dubey,Neeta Singh Chandel
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.

The writ petition was dismissed in default vide order dated23.7.2002.

Petitioner has applied for recall of the above order and for restoration of the writ petition to its original number vide application dated 23.1.2013 which is accompanied by application to condone the delay in filing the recall/restoration application.

The aforesaid applications have been moved by a new counsel and not by the counsel who was appearing for the petitioner when the case was dismissed in default.

I have heard Ms. Neeta Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner.

She states that the petitioner had no knowledge of the dismissal of the writ petition and the correct information in this regard was not supplied by the previous counsel. Therefore he engaged her on 22.1.2013 whereupon the correct position was ascertained and the application for recall of the order has been filed.

The recall application has been filed more than 10 years after the writ petition was dismissed in default. The petitioner had not taken enough care to ascertain the position/status of the writ petition during all these 10 years and has simply made a bald allegation that on being asked he was not given correct information by the earlier counsel. Such a bald and vague explanation can not be accepted to be bonafide so as to condone the delay in filing the recall/restoration application.

Apart from this there is no explanation in the application for the absence of the counsel when the application was dismissed in default. The explanation in this regard can only be given by the office of the previous counsel and not by the new counsel who can not have knowledge of the things that took place 10 years ago.

In view of above, I find no substance in the application and accordingly both the applications are rejected.

Order Date :- 24.4.2013

SKS