Full Text
Translation output
i.3
* IN THE HIGII COURT OF w.P.(c) 381912000
V.K. SHARMA
Through:
* IN THE HIGII COURT OF w.P.(c) 381912000
V.K. SHARMA
Through:
VERSUS
UOI & ORS.
Through:
%
DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
Mr. DaleeP Singh, Adv. ..... ResPondents
Mr. Satyapal Singh, Adv.
Through:
%
DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
Mr. DaleeP Singh, Adv. ..... ResPondents
Mr. Satyapal Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEIITA
08.03.201.3 c M N o. 8 1 1 8/2 0 1 2 (fo r re c a-lli n e' g rd e t d a! g-q- 7-2' 2 0 0 $' l.Thiswritpetitionwasdismissedfornon-appearanceon
7.2.2005. After about Seven years, these applications have been filed for restoration and for condonation of delay. The only grounds which are alleged in these applications are that the earlier counsel for the petitioner did not tell him about the case having been listed for hearing and being dismissed in default.
2.Theexplanationgiven,inmyopinion'isnotacceptablebecause these days the case status is availabl e24X7 and 365 days of the year on the
!vP(c) No.3819/2000
Page 1 of2
2013:DHC:6610 il
08.03.201.3 c M N o. 8 1 1 8/2 0 1 2 (fo r re c a-lli n e' g rd e t d a! g-q- 7-2' 2 0 0 $' l.Thiswritpetitionwasdismissedfornon-appearanceon
7.2.2005. After about Seven years, these applications have been filed for restoration and for condonation of delay. The only grounds which are alleged in these applications are that the earlier counsel for the petitioner did not tell him about the case having been listed for hearing and being dismissed in default.
2.Theexplanationgiven,inmyopinion'isnotacceptablebecause these days the case status is availabl e24X7 and 365 days of the year on the
!vP(c) No.3819/2000
Page 1 of2
2013:DHC:6610 il
:
-f website of the Court. The petitioner also admittedly states that even in2012 when these applications were filed, he came to know of the dismissal in default through the website. If that be so, there is no reason why for seven years the petitioner did not take steps to restore the petition' No doubt
Courts are liberal in condoning the delay and restoring the petitions, however, once the delay translates to negligence and want of action, Courts are not inclined to condone the delay and restore the writ petition.
Z. I may note that the writ petition sought quashing of the order of the respondents which showed financial inegularities against the petitioner and the petitioner had also conceded to the misdemeanour, but laid out a case that he was misled to concede the misappropriation.
-f website of the Court. The petitioner also admittedly states that even in2012 when these applications were filed, he came to know of the dismissal in default through the website. If that be so, there is no reason why for seven years the petitioner did not take steps to restore the petition' No doubt
Courts are liberal in condoning the delay and restoring the petitions, however, once the delay translates to negligence and want of action, Courts are not inclined to condone the delay and restore the writ petition.
Z. I may note that the writ petition sought quashing of the order of the respondents which showed financial inegularities against the petitioner and the petitioner had also conceded to the misdemeanour, but laid out a case that he was misled to concede the misappropriation.
ORDER
3. In my opinion, in view of the aforesaid, no grounds are made out for allowing of these applications which are accordingly dismissed. V '4lraPa'*^-Lt'r--' VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J MARCH 08,2013 ak WP(C) No.3819/2000 Page? of 2 2013:DHC:6610