1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.61 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1464 OF 2008 Mr.Sushil Ram Parihar & Anr. .. Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Niranjan Mundargi i/by Mr.Shreekant Gavand for the applicants. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P for the State. Mr.Heeralal Chaturved for respondent no.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 25th June 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned advocate for the applicants and advocate for the 2nd respondent. The prayer for restoration is opposed by the learned advocate for the 2nd respondent on two grounds. The first ground is that on 10th December 2008 none appeared for the applicants when Writ Petition was placed before this Court and therefore on 07th January 2009 when none appeared for the petitioners the petition was dismissed for default. The second contention is that this application is not 2 maintainable as the same has been affirmed by the advocate for the applicants and not by the applicants. 2. In so far as the second contention is concerned, what is stated in the application is that the advocate s clerk did not notice that the writ petition has been placed on board and therefore the advocate for applicants was not aware that the writ petition was on board. In the application it is averred that the advocate for applicant cross-checks the information received from his clerk by checking the cause-list on the website of this Court. It is stated in the application that in the cause-list appearing on the website, the writ petition was not shown. The facts stated in the application are within the special knowledge of the advocate and therefore the advocate himself has filed an affidavit. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the advocate affirming the application as in the application the facts which are within the knowledge of the advocate are being disclosed. The writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that the advocate for the applicants was 3 not present, therefore, the applicants should not be made to suffer. Hence, application will have to be restored subject to payment of costs. Accordingly, application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). The applicants will pay the costs of Rs.2,500/- to the 2nd respondent. The writ petition shall be placed for admission on 14th July 2009. (A.S.OKA,J)