IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL MCC RESTORATION APPLICATION NO. 791 OF 2009 CLMA DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION NO. 9072 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5361 OF 2001 (SS) N.S. Bhatnagar ….Petitioner. Versus State of U.P. and others. ……Respondents. Mr. A. Rab, Advocate for petitioner/applicant. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. 23rd October, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. A. Rab, Advocate for applicant/petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. This writ petition was dismissed for non- prosecution by orders of the learned Single Judge on 29th February, 2008. The order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition for non-prosecution reads as under: “Case called out twice. None appears on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.” Now, a restoration application has been filed by the applicant/petitioner along with a delay condonation application. Such an application was filed on 21st October, 2009. The restoration application, therefore, is 2 also highly belated. The reasons assigned in the delay condonation applications are that the petitioner is a senior citizen, who is about 80 years and not keeping good health and he had knowledge about such dismissal of writ petition only in October, 2009. Consequently, he instructed his counsel to move a restoration application, etc, etc. On ground that the petitioner is a senior citizen of about 80 years and other reasons assigned for delay appear to be bonafide. Delay Condonation application is, therefore, allowed. The reasons assigned for restoring the case to its original number and recalling the order dated 29.2.2008 also appear to be bonafide. The restoration application is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 29.2.2008 is recalled and the case is restored to its original number. Rathour (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 23.10.2009