IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Restoration Application No.283/2011 IN Writ Petition No.180 of 2009 (S/B) Sagar Chandra … Petitioner Versus Public Service Tribunal & others … Respondents Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Addl. CSC for the State/respondent nos.1,2, 4 and 5 Dated: 28.06.2011 Coram Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Considered the averments made in the application for restoration. We are of the view that because of the laches or negligence on the part of the learned advocate for the petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed for default. Inasmuch as, for laches or negligence on the part of the advocate, a litigant should not suffer, we allow the application for restoration upon payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- with the High Court Legal Services Committee, to be deposited within four weeks from today. The writ petition is, accordingly, directed to be restored to its original number. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had approached the Tribunal unsuccessfully, when in a disciplinary proceeding, enquiry report came into existence. He submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, punishment order has been passed accepting the enquiry report. He, accordingly, submits that the present writ petition has become infructuous and the petitioner seeks liberty to challenge the final order, when leave be also granted to challenge all other consequential matters including the charge sheet and the enquiry report. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty as above, but to the extent permissible in law. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 28.06.2011 Rdang