IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2257 of 2007 (M/S) Atul Kumar and another …… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand And others ……. Respondents ……. Mr. B.M. Molakhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order dated 05.06.2006, I fully agree with the view of the learned trial Court that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Delay Condonation Application of the petitioner for re-admission of the appeal ought to have been rejected because the petitioner could not explain as to why the delay occurred in filing the application for re-admission of the appeal. 2. I also fully agree with the view of the learned Court below that the petitioner had always been a habitual absentee at various stages of the proceedings in the trial Court as well as in the appeal Court. Actually, delaying tactics are also apparent from the fact that against the impugned order dated 05.06.2006, the present petition was filed in November, 2007 i.e. almost after one and half years. No convincing explanation has been given about this delay. The petition accordingly is dismissed. Dated : 12.06.2008 (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) A