WPSB No. 195 of 2005 CLMA No. 1029 of 2010 Ms. Menka Tripathi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. D.S. Bisht, Advocate for Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 4. For the reasons indicated in the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application, delay in filing the restoration application is hereby condoned. MCC No. 71 of 2010 For the reasons indicated in the affidavit accompanying the recall application, more particularly paragraph 2 onwards, we are satisfied that the non-appearance of the petitioner or his counsel on 18.5.2007 is neither intentional nor deliberate. Accordingly, we are of the view that the order dated 18.5.2009 should be recalled. The same is accordingly recalled. The original writ petition dismissed in default on 18.5.2007 is accordingly ordered to be restored to its original number. WPSB No. 195 of 2005 Presence as above. A perusal of the office report dated 10.8.2006 reveals that the addresses of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 5 depicted in the memo of parties is incorrect Learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly seeks an adjournment so as to enable her to file an amended memo of parties with the fresh correct addresses of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 5. Prayer is allowed. Needful be done within one week from today. On the receipt of fresh correct addresses of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 5, the Registry shall issue fresh notice to respondent nos. 2, 3 and 5 returnable for 13.4.2010. To come up for further consideration on 13.4.2010. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 26.2.2010 Rathour