C482 No.37/2006 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. (Restoration Appln. No.780/11) (Delay Condn. Appln. No.1261/11) Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder for the State. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant on both the applications, it transpires that petition no.37 of 2006 was filed and pending for adjudication before this Court but none was present to press the petition even at the revised call. As such, vide order dated 03.09.2010, the petition was dismissed for non- prosecution and the interim order dated 12.01.2006, granted by the Court earlier, was vacated. Now, after more than a year, this restoration application has been filed along with the application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. In the restoration application, prayer has been made to restore the petition to its original number along with the interim order dated 12.01.2006. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the petitioner, who after procuring the stay order from this Court, felt himself free to non- prosecute his petition, should not be provided any relief at all by this Court. The restoration application as well as the delay condonation application, both deserve to be rejected. Accordingly, both of them are rejected. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 03.11.2011 Rdang