MCC 569/2011 CLMA 7844/2011 CLMA 7845/2011 CLMA 7846/2011 CLMA 7847/2011 CLMA 9622/2011 IN WPMS 256/2001 (Old No.13816/1985) Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Anirudh Johsi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Kumar, the learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Lokendra Dobhal, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 & 5. The State of Uttarakhand was created on 9th November, 2000. The cases relating to the State of Uttarakhand were transmitted from the Allahabad High Court to this Court. The present case was also transmitted to this Court on 16.11.2000 as is clear from the order-sheet. On 16th March, 2001, notice was issued to the petitioner as well as to the respondents. On 16th March, 2001, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution since no one appeared for the petitioner. The Court does not find that the petitioner was served on that date and that it makes a reasonable ground to recall the order dated 16th May, 2001, but the Court finds that the petitioner has filed the restoration application in August, 2011, in which it has been stated that the petitioner no. 1 had died on 16th December, 2001 and that he had instructed his counsel to file a substitution application in March, 2002. According to the petitioner, the said substitution application could not be filed in the registry since the petitioner was informed that the record of the case has not been transmitted to this Court and accordingly, the petitioner’s counsel could not file the substitution application. In the year 2011, the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of the writ petition and accordingly, approached his counsel and upon enquiry, found that the writ petition was dismissed in the year 2001. Accordingly, the substitution application along with the Section 5 application, application to set aside the abatement, if any, as well as the application for recall, have been filed. contd………2/- -2- Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, the Court finds that the contention of the petitioner that the record has not been received in this Court from the Allahabad High Court till March, 2002, cannot be believed inasmuch as the record had been received and the case had been dismissed on 16th May, 2001. The contention that the substitution application could not be filed in March, 2002, since the record was not received, cannot be accepted. No evidence of any sort has been filed by the petitioner to indicate that they had applied for an inspection as required under the Rules. Even otherwise, a substitution application could have been filed in the registry, which was also not done. This Court is further surprised to find that no effort was taken by the petitioner from 2002 to 2011 to find out about the status of his case vis-à- vis his alleged substitution application nor any effort has been made by the counsel to file the substitution application at a later stage after making a due enquiry. No such averment has been made justifying the delay for not filing the substitution application from March, 2002 onwards. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court is not inclined to allow any of the applications. Accordingly, Application Nos. 569/2011, 7844/2011, 7845/2011, 7846/2011, 7847/2011 and 9622/2011, are dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 01-12-2011 SP