M.C.C. No.1303/2011 9.9.2011 The writ petition challenging the validity of the Recruitment Rules, 1999, which was filed in the year 2011, has been dismissed for non-prosecution in the following circumstances. On 29-6-2011 the following order was passed in the Writ Petition No.8625/2011: "Let the default be made good within ten days, failing which the writ petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench." Despite this the default was not removed and accordingly, the writ petition stood dismissed, as noted by the Registrar (Judicial) in his noting dated 23-7-2011. Restoration has been applied by the petitioner saying that his counsel could not understand that the order was ‘peremptory’ in nature. However, it is not disputed that the above quoted order dated 29-6-2011 was passed in the presence and hearing of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Normally when any petition filed in a Court is reported by the Office to be suffering from defects, the litigant is not supposed to wait for an order of the Court, but is supposed to remove the defects on his own. When the matter is listed before the Court because defect has not been removed voluntarily, and the Court passes an order granting time, it is by way of extra-indulgence. If even thereafter the defects are not removed, it would prima facie indicate that the petitioner is either utterly negligent in pursuing the case or not serious about the case. More importantly, if the petition is dismissed because the litigant fails to comply with the Court’s ‘peremptory’ order passed in 1 presence of the counsel appearing for the litigant, by failing to remove the defects pointed out in the petition, and thereafter restoration is applied in a routine manner, restoring such case would amount to allowing the litigant to be over casual towards such peremptory orders, and in effect to reduce the peremptory orders of the Court to a mockery. Restoring such matters would amount to setting a bad precedent for future. In the circumstances, this is not a case which is fit for restoration. The restoration application is rejected. (Sushil Harkauli) (K.K. Trivedi) Acting Chief Justice Judge ac/AK 2