1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION O. NO.195 OF 2009. IN M.C.A. (RESTO.) ST. NO.6740 OF 2008. IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6567 OF 2007. IN REJ. M.C.A.NO.662 OF 2007. IN M.C.A. NO.368 OF 2006. IN WRIT PETITON NO.2150 OF 2003 (D). NARAYAN S/O GANPATRAO BARDE VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri P. SA. Markandeywar Advocate for applicant. Miss Tanna Advocate for Respondent no.4. Shri Kothari Advocate for Respondent no.1 & 3. Coram : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. Dated : 6TH OCTOBER, 2009. The present Civil application is for condonation of delay of 189 days in filing Misc. Civil Application (Restoration) St. No.6740 of 2008 against the order dated 13-09-2007 passed in Civil Application No.6567 of 2007. This Civil application No.6567 of 2007 was in rejected Misc. Civil Application No.662 of 2007 in Misc. Civil Application No.368 of 2006. This Misc. Civil Application No.368 of 2006 was in Writ 2 Petition No. 2150 of 2003. We have perused the application which is supported by personal affidavit of the Advocate. The petitioner, an employee, with non-applicant no.1 lost his service after departmental enquiry because of punishment, and that has been challenged before this Court. We, therefore, do not find any malafdes in the matter. It appears that the MCA No.368 of 2006 for restoration of Writ Petition No.2150 of 2003 was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- and as those were not deposited in the MCA No.368/06, said MCA was dismissed. Thereafter, Civil Application No. 6567 of 2007 was moved for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. However, no substantive application for restoration of MCA No.368 of 2006 was moved. The Civil Application No.6567 of 2007 was dismissed on 13-09-2007 and thereafter, the present proceedings have been instituted. Though Advocate Miss Tanna is right in contending that there is some negligence in the matter, as it is a question of service of the applicant, we have after hearing the parties decided to restore the Writ Petition No.2150 of 2003 back to file. 3 Accordingly, by setting aside all intervening orders, Writ Petition No.2150 of 2003 is restored back to file. List the writ petition for admission before the appropriate Bench immediately after vacation. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/