IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Appeal No.1094 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 17.07.2008 in W.P.No.13378 of 2006 on the file of the High Court) Between: Smt. S. Jayasree. …APPELLANT AND The Secretary, A.P. Bar Council, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the appellant: Mr. D. Venkateshwarlu Counsel for the respondents: Mr. S. Nanda The court made the following: Judgment: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in WPMP No.18210 of 2008 in WPMP No.16631 of 2006 in W.P.No.13378 of 2006, this appeal has been filed. 2. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition Miscellaneous Petition (WPMP) ﬁled for restoration of WPMP No.16631 of 2006 in W.P.No.13378 of 2006. 3. The circumstances in which WPMP No.16631 of 2006 was dismissed are as under: The aforesaid Writ Petition Miscellaneous Petition was listed at Item No.120 in the cause list which was prepared for hearing on 21.04.2008. However, on the said date, cases were taken up by the learned single Judge only upto Item No.66. A supplemental cause list was prepared and notiﬁed for hearing of cases before the learned single Judge on 22.04.2008. In the supplemental cause list dated 22.04.2008, only 25 cases were notiﬁed and at the end of the said list, there was a note to the following effect: “After supplemental list dated 22.04.2008, the supplemental list dated 21.04.2008 will be taken up from Item No.67 onwards” 4. In view of the said note, after completing the supplemental list dated 22.04.2008, further cases were taken up from the supplemental list dated 21.04.2008 as per the note, which was printed in the cause list dated 22.04.2008. As the learned Advocate did not appear when the case was called out, the said Writ Petition Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed for default. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, which had been passed on 22.04.2008, the appellant herein had ﬁled an application for restoration, being WPMP No.18310 of 2008. 6. After hearing the learned Advocate, the learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss the said application ﬁled for restoration, for the reason that the learned single Judge was not satisﬁed with the reason with regard to the absence of the learned Advocate who was to appear for the petitioner. The learned single Judge, while dismissing the application, observed in the order that instead of oﬀering any explanation for the absence of the petitioner, who is a lawyer or her Advocate, it was stated in the aﬃdavit that the dismissal of the application by the Court was highly arbitrary and unjust. Thus, as no explanation was oﬀered before the learned single Judge for remaining absent at the time when the restoration petition was called out for hearing, the learned single Judge had dismissed the restoration petition. 7. Being aggrieved by the afore-stated order dated 17.07.2008, this appeal has been filed. 8. We have heard the learned Advocate and we have also gone through the record pertaining to the case including the grounds of appeal as well as an aﬃdavit, which had been ﬁled before the learned single Judge while ﬁling a petition for restoration. It is deplorable that instead of giving reasons for absence of the petitioner or her Advocate before the learned single Judge, in the Memo, it has been stated that “… Amazingly it was shown as dismissed for default on 22.04.2008 surreptitiously without sufficient cause.” 9. Learned Advocate did not give any justiﬁable reason for his absence to appear and represent the case of the petitioner before the learned single Judge. Instead, he was trying to find fault with the system. 10. Upon perusal of the aﬃdavit ﬁled before the learned single Judge and the Memo ﬁled along with the appeal, we too are convinced that no reason at all is assigned by the petitioner for the absence on 22.04.2008. In that view of the matter, we do not ﬁnd any error in the order passed by the learned single Judge, warranting interference in this appeal. 11. The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. September 15, 2008 GRR/MRR