1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 75 of 2010 Mahendra Pal Singh ……… Appellant. Versus The District Inspector of Schools, Haridwar and others .……….Respondents. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Bhasnal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Date of Judgment: 06.07.2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) Through the instant Special Appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 28.04.2010, disposing of Restoration Application No. 61 of 2010. By the aforesaid order, the restoration application filed by the appellant herein was dismissed. 2. A perusal of the impugned order dated 28.04.2010 reveals, that on three occasions Writ Petition (S/S) No. 270 of 2002 was dismissed on account of non-prosecution. The aforestated Restoration Application No. 61 of 2010 was preferred when the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed in default for the third time. Finding the attitude of the appellant as unacceptable, in so far as his commitment to prosecute the writ petition filed by him was concerned, the learned Single Judge found no justification, whatsoever, to restore Writ Petition (S/S) No. 270 of 2002, dismissed in default on 31.07.2008. 2 considered view, the aforesaid compulsion at the hands of the appellant to engage a fresh counsel on each occasion Writ Petition (S/S) No. 270 of 2002 was dismissed in default, cannot be an issue of consideration to the detriment of the appellant. On account of the appellant’s misfortune, when the counsel engaged by him did not enter appearance to argue the claim raised by him, he had no other alternative but to engage a fresh counsel on all the three occasions. Another reason depicted in the impugned order for not accepting the prayer for restoration was, that the writ petition having been dismissed on 31.07.2008, the restoration application was filed two years thereafter in 2010. This consideration again cannot be taken against the appellant on account of the fact, that a restoration application can only be filed, when the fact that the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed in default, came to the notice of the appellant. Since he had engaged a fresh counsel after the dismissal of the writ petition on 31.07.2008, it is apparent that he was dissatisfied with the earlier counsel for not having agitated the claim raised by him, as also presumably for not having informed him about the disposal of the aforesaid writ petition in 2008, that too on account of non-prosecution. In view of the factual position noticed hereinabove, it is also not possible for us to take into consideration the period of two years, whereafter the restoration application was moved, as a matter prejudicial to the appellant, in so far as filing of the restoration application is concerned. 4. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 28.04.2010 deserves to be set aside. The same is accordingly hereby set aside. The writ petition filed by the appellant is directed to be restored to its original number. Learned counsel for the rival parties are directed to appear before the learned Single Judge on 10th August, 2010. 5. It is necessary for us to take into consideration the fact, that the writ petition filed by the petitioner ( appellant herein) had been dismissed in default for the third time on 31.07.2008. Obviously the appellant was not paying due attention to the case initiated by him, which resulted in its dismissal repeatedly. In the aforesaid process of restoration of the writ 3 petition adopted by the appellant, precious Court’s time was wasted again and again, even the disposal of the instant Special Appeal must be treated as a waste of Court’s time. To ensure, that such an attitude is not adopted by the litigants, who approach this Court for justice, we are of the view that costs are liable to be imposed on the appellant. We accordingly hereby impose costs, quantified at Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant. The aforesaid costs shall be deposited by the appellant with the Uttarakhand High Court Lawyers Welfare Association (being operated by the Registry of this Court). The aforesaid costs shall be deposited into the aforesaid fund before the date depicted hereinabove. 6. In addition to the factual position noticed hereinabove, it needs to be mentioned, that it was also brought to our notice that an interim injunction was passed in favour of the appellant herein during the pendency of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 270 of 2002, whereby the appellant continued to render services as against the post of Lecturer, whereas by the impugned order he had been reverted to the post of L.T. grade teacher. It may well have been, that the restoration applications were moved from time to time without agitating the main case on merits with the aim and object of continuing to render service as a Lecturer on the strength of an interim order passed by this Court. It may well, therefore, have been that on the last occasion, when the writ petition was dismissed on 31.07.2008, no restoration application had been moved for a period of two years. Even though we have ordered the restoration of the writ petition, we are of the considered view, that the appellant should not be permitted to draw any further benefit of the interim order passed in his favour during the course of the pendency of the writ petition. Thus viewed, the instant restoration will not result in restoration of the interim order passed in favour of the appellant. 7. The instant appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia,J.) (J.S. Khehar,C.J.) 06.07.2010 06.07.2010 Amit