WPSS No.5293 of 2001 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Mr D.S. Patni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr Anil Bisht, Brief Holder for the respondents. (Delay Condonation Appl. No.13172 of 2011) Heard. There is 2705 days delay in filing the restoration application. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application the petitioner has stated that after the transfer of the writ petition from Allahabad High Court the petitioner has not received any notice from this Court and due to this reason nobody could appear before the Court when the same was heard on 17.06.2004. I think this ground taken by the petitioner is sufficient to allow the delay condonation application. Delay condonatoin application is allowed. Delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. (Restoration Appl. No.961 of 2011) Heard on restoration application. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that after the transfer of the writ petition from Allahabad High Court the petitioner has not received any notice from this Court and due to this reason nobody could appear before the Court when the same was heard on 17.06.2004. Grounds shown in the affidavit filed in support of the restoration application are sufficient to allow the restoration application. Application is allowed. Order dated 17.06.2004 passed by this Court is hereby recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number. WPSS No.5293 of 2001 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition services of the petitioner has been regularized vide order dated 12.07.2004 therefore, the writ petition has rendered infructuous. In view of the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. It is made clear that dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the petitioner in any manner to affect the regulation order. (V.K. Bist, J.) 16.12.2011 Arti