1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4687 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1376 OF 1996 The Executive Engineer, Works Division, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. ...Applicant VERSUS Abdul Sami Abdul Sayyed and another ...Respondents ..... Shri Vijay Sharma, advocate for the applicant Mrs.M.L.Sangit, advocate for the respondents. ..... CORAM : S.P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 12th June, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. 2. The applicant (original petitioner) has preferred the present application for restoration of Writ Petition No. 1376 of 1996 which was dismissed in default on 15.4.2009. The petitioner submits 2 that Writ Petition No. 1376 of 1996 was admitted on 17.4.1996 and Rule was granted; as well as interim relief in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ was also granted therein till final decision of the said petition after hearing both the parties. The said petition was listed for final hearing on different occasions from 9.6.2006 onwards and matter was substantially heard and was adjourned for certain clarification as regards the Government Resolution in January and February, 2009. However, after the change of roster from 6.4.2009 the matter did not appear on the Cyclostyled Board on 15.4.2009 circulated by the Bar Association and as such said matter went unattended. Accordingly the said Writ Petition came to be dismissed by this court in default and interim relief was vacated. 3. The applicant submits that absence of the petitioner was unintentional and same was not willful or deliberate. The matter involves substantial questions of law and merit and the petitioner is public institution and public institution should not suffer for the mistake of the advocate. Hence the applicant prayed that Writ Petition No. 1376 of 1996 be restored to file at the stage when it was dismissed. 4. Heard both the learned counsel for the parties. 5. After considering the rival submissions, at the out set there 3 is no dispute that the petitioner is a public institution and interest of public institution is involved in the Writ Petition No. 1376 of 1996. Moreover, the contention of the petitioner that Writ Petition No. 1376 of 1996 did not appear on the Cyclostyled Board circulated by the Bar Association on 15.4.2009 and, therefore, it went unattended and consequently resulted into dismissal thereof on the said date, apparently appears to be sufficient ground for non-appearance of the petitioner on the said date before this court and hence opportunity is required to be given to the petitioner to content the said Writ Petition on merits. Therefore, Writ Petition is required to be restored to file at its original stage when it was dismissed in default in the interest of justice. 6. In the circumstances, Civil Application No. 4687 of 2009 is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ thereof and stands disposed of accordingly. (S.P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/ca4687.09 4