IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 594 of 2003 (S/B) Dr. Lal Singh ….…… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Preeta Bhatt, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Bina Pande, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. / respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State / respondent Nos. 2 and 4. Date of Judgment: 07.09.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) Miscellaneous Application No. 8092 of 2011 Restoration Application No. 1091 of 2010 The clerk failed to mark the matter in the cause list and, accordingly, the counsel could not attend Court when the matter was taken up for consideration, is the reason furnished for non-appearance, when the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. 2. That appears to be no ground at all. If the learned counsel depends on inefficient clerks, then he would sink along with such inefficiency. Be that as it may, since a prayer is being made for withdrawal of the writ petition, we are allowing the application for restoration. Writ Petition No. 594 of 2003 (S/B) As prayed for, permission is granted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of the grievances in the writ petition. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 07.09.2011 07.09.2011 Amit