1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.511 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1856 OF 2006 Union of India & Anr. .. .. Petitioners Vs. The President, Indian Motion Picture Distributor's Association & Ors. .. .. Respondents -- Smt. Rutuja Ambekar for the Applicants/Petitioners. Shri R.N. Narula i/by M/s. J. Narula & Associates for Respondent No.1. Ms Neha Mehta i/by Haresh Mehta & Co. for Respondent No.2. -- CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J DATED : 28TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. Heard. The Union of India filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the Respondents for recovery of newsreel rentals and to pay the amount of Rs.1,05,35,970/- and Rs.45,82,194/- respectively from Respondent Nos.1 and 2. This Writ Petition came to be rejected for non removal of the office objections. On an application moved by the Union of 2 India, the earlier order was recalled vide order dated 12th December, 2006 by the Registrar (O.S.)/Prothonotary, who granted time to remove the office objections till 9th January, 2007, failing which the Petition shall stand rejected in terms of Rule 986 of the High Court Original Side Rules. The Union of India took no steps and consequently by operation of the peremptory order the Writ Petition stood dismissed under Rule 986 of the said Rules. 2. The Union of India, thereafter, took out a Notice of Motion for recalling the said order dated 12th December, 2006 and restoration of the said Writ Petition to its original number and file. In the said Notice of Motion, a prayer has also been made that the delay of 848 days in moving the Notice of Motion to restore the said Writ Petition be condoned. 3. The said Notice of Motion is opposed by the non- applicant. According to them, no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay. It is stated that the authorities concerned as well as learned counsel appearing for Union of India had knowledge 3 of the order of rejection of the Writ Petition and there was sheer negligence on the part of Union of India in not taking appropriate steps within the prescribed limitation. 4. We have perused the Notice of Motion and the affidavit- in-support thereto and we find that the averments made therein are vague, more particularly in paragraphs 5, 6 and 10 of the said affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. We fail to understand as to why a praecipe could not be moved for lack of complete advise given by the Advocate. The Union of India has law officers exclusively to attend the matters in the High Court itself who are responsible for conduct of the cases. The law of limitation applies to all, as condonation of delay has the effect of divesting the right which has accrued to the other party. No reason much less sufficient cause has been shown for grant of Notice of Motion. 5. Consequently, while declining to condone the delay of 848 days in moving the Notice of Motion for restoration of the said Petition, the present Notice of Motion is rejected, with no order as to costs. 4 CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J