1 (crim. Appln 106 of 2010 in cri wp 1532 of 2007) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 106 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1531 OF 2007 Sandeep R. Singasane ...Applicant/Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ****** Mr.S.A. Sawant for Applicant/Petitioner Mrs.M.R. Tidake -APP for the State. Mr.O.S. Kutty and Ms. Reema Paramasivan for Respondent Nos.2,3, and 4 ****** CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED:18TH NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the Respondents. 2. This is an application for restoration of the criminal writ petition which was dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 18.7.2008. It is submitted that the office objections were not removed by the earlier advocate appointed by the Applicant and, therefore, on 2 (crim. Appln 106 of 2010 in cri wp 1532 of 2007) default on part of the learned Advocate, the Applicant could not be penalised. It is submitted that the Applicant came to know about the dismissal of the case, when he checked the status of the matter on 26th February, 2010. It is submitted that the Applicant has good case on merits. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that there is a gross delay in filing this application for restoration. He submitted that the writ petition was dismissed on 18.7.2008, whereas the present application has filed in the year 2010. He also submitted that even the order which was passed by the Sessions Court, was challenged after one year and for a period of one year, the office objections were not removed. He submitted that no explanation has been given as to what steps were taken by the Applicant for a period of two years after the dismissal of the writ petition, particularly, prior to 25th February, 2010. 4. In my view, there is much substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. No satisfactory explanation has 3 (crim. Appln 106 of 2010 in cri wp 1532 of 2007) been given by the Applicant for the delay caused in filing this application for restoration. No explanation has been given as what steps have been taken by the Applicant prior to 25th February, 2010. The Applicant is residing in Mumbai. He could have very well taken instructions from his advocate during the period from 2008 to 2009. This is not a case where the Applicant is residing in rural area from where he was unable to contact his advocate. The status of the case is now available on the internet. The Applicant could have very well checked the status since last one year. 3. In these circumstances, no case is made out by the Applicant for condoning the delay in filing the application for restoration. Sufficient cause has not been shown by the Applicant for moving this Court earlier. 4. No case is made out for restoring this writ petition which was dismissed for want of prosecution. 5. Application for restoration is, accordingly, rejected and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)