IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 224 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 194 OF 2007 BHOGILAL MANIKCHAND SHAH & ANR. APPLICANTS Vs. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, ANTI ADULTERATION CELL & ORS. RESPONDENTS Mr. Rahul S. Kulkarni for the petitioners Mr. Naushad Engineer i/b RMG Law for R-1 & 3 CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED: 30/9/2009 P.C. This civil applicaton is filed by the original petitioners praying that Writ Petition No. 194 of 2007 which was rejected on merits on 17/4/07 in the absence of the applicants' counsel be restored. In the civil application it is stated that counsel for the applicants could not attend to the matter on 17/4/07 because his four days old daughter was hospitalized and was kept in incubator for five days. It is further stated in the application that the counsel had to attend the hospital during the period when the matter was listed for admission before this court. 2. It is evident from the order dated 17/4/07 that neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present when the petition was heard. Yet the Division Bench has rejected the petition on merits. In this connection our attention is drawn to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh v. Kishan Singh (deceased) through L.Rs. & Ors.,2007(3) Supreme 295. In that case the High Court had disposed of second appeal in the absence of the appellant or his counsel . The appeal was dismissed on merits. An application for restoration of the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the appeal was decided on merits. The matter was carried to the Supreme Court by the appellant. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The Supreme Court observed that the appellant's absence in the court was unintentional and the reasons for absence were indicated. The Supreme Court further observed that merely because appeal has been dismissed on merits that could not have been a ground to refuse the restoration of the appeal. 3. In our opinion the said judgment would be clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. In this case also the reasons for absence are indicated in the civil application. We are satisfied with the explanation offered by the applicant. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh's case (supra), in our opinion, the writ petition deserves to be restored. Hence order dated 17/4/07 is set aside. The writ petition is restored to the file. 4. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The writ petition is restored purely in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh's case. Contentions of both sides are kept open. Civil application is disposed of. (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)