MC 562/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.UPADHYAY MC NO.562 OF 2011 IN WP(C) NO.6615 OF 2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AC UPADHYAY 01.04.2011 This is an application for restoration of WP(C) No.6615 of 2010, by setting asid e the order dated 14.02.2011. Heard Mr. MK Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I. Rafique, lear ned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. BJ Talukdar, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Adv ocate, representing the State respondents. Also heard Mrs. A. Devi, learned coun sel for the respondent No.3. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that WP(C) No.6615 of 2010, was f iled by the petitioner challenging the letter dated 16.09.2010, by which the res pondent No.3 cancelled the allotment of land to the petitioner. On filing of the aforesaid writ petition, this Court issued notice of motion on 13.12.2010 and a n interim order was also passed directing the parties to maintain status quo. However, this Court due to the absence of the counsel for the petitioner dismiss ed the aforesaid writ petition on 14.02.2011 for non-prosecution. Mr. MK Choudhu ry, learned senior counsel has submitted that it was mainly due to the fault of the junior counsel, for which the aforesaid writ petition came to be dismissed f or non-prosecution. Learned counsel has pointed out that on the date of listing of the case in the court, due to oversight, learned junior counsel failed to not ice the listing of the case on 21.01.2011, and accordingly, when the matter was called on in the Court, the case was dismissed for non-prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner’s advocat e certainly would have appeared in the case when the matter was called on for he aring, but they could not due to sudden breakdown of the car of Mr. I. Rafique, by which the engaged counsel of the petitioner were coming from the State Consum er Court, Kamrup, Guwahati. Mrs. A. Devi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has vehemently objected th e prayer and submitted that due to the negligence of the petitioner, the matter was dismissed for default and it does not deserve to be restored to file. The arguments advanced by Mrs. A. Devi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 received due consideration of this Court. On careful perusal of the materials on record, it appears that it was mainly due to the default on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. However, as submitted on behalf of t he learned counsel for the petitioner, parties cannot be made to suffer for the default on the part of the learned counsel. Accordingly, considering the matter in its entirety and for ends of justice, the prayer for restoration of the writ petition aforementioned is allowed and the o rder dated 14.02.2011, dismissing WP(C) No.6615 of 2010, is accordingly set asid e and the writ petition aforesaid is restored to its original file. Misc. application stands disposed of in terms of the above directions. JUDGE nk