IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2839 of 2011 Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Jawahar Prasad Choudhary, resident of village Piprahi P.O. Jaya Ram Raghopur, P.S. Raghopur, District Supaul. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Food Corporation of India, New Delhi. 2. The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Patna. 3. The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office, Saharsa. 4. Depot Incharge Cum Manager, Food Corporation of India, Raghopur, District- Supaul. 5. Asst Manager (General) Food Corporation of India District Office Saharsa Camp Raghopur District Supaul. 6. The Deputy Manager ( Q C), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Patna. 7. Assistant Depot Superintendent, Food Corporation of India, F.S.D. Raghopur District Supaul. 8. The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Samastipur. …. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : None. ------- 02/ 03.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition has been filed for modification of order dated 06.07.2011 by which MJC No.1274 of 2011 filed by the petitioner was allowed and CWJC No.3104 of 2005 was restored to its original file and number. However, the said order was subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000.00 to Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, learned counsel for the opposite parties by the petitioner within one month. The modification sought in this petition is only with respect to cost. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that opposite parties did not at all oppose the contention of learned - 2 - counsel for the petitioner, but it had been mentioned in the order that learned counsel for the opposite parties had vehemently opposed. He further stated that cost awarded to the petitioner was not proper and justified as the writ petition had to be restored on its own merit and there was no occasion for payment of cost for the said purpose. So far the opposition of learned counsel for the opposite parties is concerned, irrespective of the aforesaid fact it is quite apparent that the aforesaid MJC petition filed by the petitioner was allowed. So far the conduct of the petitioner is concerned it had been found that CWJC No.3104 of 2005 was filed on 07.03.2005, whereafter it was listed under the heading ‘Admission’ on 16.05.2005 to enable learned counsel for the respondents to file counter affidavit. Thereafter about five years lapsed and when on 28.02.2011 the case was taken up for hearing in admission no one appeared for the petitioner and the court taking a lenient view adjourned the case for the day as a last chance as it was already six years old. Again the case was listed on 07.03.2011, but when it was called out again, petitioner’s counsel did not appear to press the writ petition and the court had no opportunity left but to dismiss it for non-prosecution. These facts stared at the face of learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing of MJC No.1274 of 2011 on 06.07.2011, but this court took a lenient view in the matter and restored the writ petition. Since the writ case was dismissed due to - 3 - repeated failure of the petitioner or his counsel to appear in the court for two consecutive dates but in spite of that the matter was being restored, the cost of only Rs.1,000.00 was imposed. This court does not find any reason to modify any part of the said order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)