$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 21606/2005 MUHAMAD HASHIM QASMI & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Athar Alalm, Mr. Sumbul Athar, Mr. Azhar Alam, Ms. Payal Bahl and Ms. Kanchan Mala, Advs. versus REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES DELHI & ..... Respondent Through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R D E R % 31.05.2018 C.M. Appl. Nos. 23937/2018 & 23938/2018 1 These are two applications seeking restoration of the writ petition and condonation of delay. 2 The writ petition was dismissed as far back as on 08.09.2010. Learned counsel says that the previous counsel did not inform the petitioners that the matter had been dismissed for non-prosecution. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, an impression was given that the writ petition was admitted. 3 Even if, I were to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and condone the delay for the first six (6) years i.e. between 2010 and 2016, there is no explanation for the delay thereafter. 4 Annexure P-2, appended to the application, shows that petitioner No.1 had written to the earlier Advocate, engaged by the petitioners, on 14.03.2016 wherein he had stated that he was informed that the matter had been disposed of. 4.1 As a matter of fact, petitioner No. 1 went on to say that he had sent a SMS to the earlier Advocate i.e. Mr. Kamran Rizvi on 18.01.2016 requesting for a copy of the order. The next letter, which was written by petitioner No.1 to the earlier Advocate i.e. Mr. Kamran Rizvi, was only on 17.03.2018. 4.2 There is complete slothfulness in the petitioners’ prosecuting their case. 5 Accordingly, I am not inclined to entertain these applications. 6 The applications are, consequently, dismissed. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J MAY 31, 2018 A