IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 445 of 2001 (S/B) (Old No. 31024/98) With Restoration application No. 1223/08) Delay Condonation application No. 7026/08 Bishamber Singh Rawat, Son of Sri Daulat Singh Rawat, Junior Engineer, Gazetted Rural Engineering Service, Pauri. …….Petitioner. Versus State of U.P. through Secretary Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Service, Lucknow and others. …..Respondents. Date 23rd October 2008 Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. {Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral)} 1. Sri Lalit Samant, Advocate present for the petitioner. 2. Sri P.C. Bisht, learned Brief Holder present for the respondent/State. 3. This is delay condonation application No. 7026 of 2008 for condonation of delay in moving the restoration application No. 1223/08 for restoration of writ petition No. 445 of 2001(S/B) {Old No. 31024 of 1998}. 4. A perusal of the record shows that the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 25-07-2001. Since then now more than seven years have passed. It is true that the writ petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court in the year 1998 and received by this Court by transfer under Section 35 of the U.P. Re-organization Act, 2000 (Central Act 29 of 2000). However, the counsel Sri M.S. Negi, who was representing the petitioner before the Allahabad High Court also practiced in this Court and he was Advocate General from 2002 to 2006-07. 5. In the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application, it is mentioned that Sri M.S. Negi asked the petitioner in the year 2001 to contact Sri V.B.S. Negi, Advocate regarding progress in the writ petition. It is further stated in the writ petition that Sri V.B.S. Negi, Advocate told the petitioner that the matter is still pending. It is not disclosed in which year this communication was made between the two. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, he engaged Sri G.S. Negi for early disposal of the writ petition. Lastly, it is stated in September 2008, the petitioner contacted the present counsel Sri Lalit Samant, who has moved this restoration application. 6. Having gone through the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in the writ petition, we find that the explanation given in the affidavit is a lame excuse and we are not satisfied with the explanation given in the affidavit. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court that the case of Sainik Security Vs. Sheel Bai and others, AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1688 in which 769 days delay was found by the Apex Court as sufficiently explained. It is not clear from the said case whether the similar excuse was given in that case or not. In the present case, there is delay of 2608 days as against the delay of only 769 days in the referred case of Sainik Security (supra). 8. The delay condonation application is dismissed. The restoration application also stands dismissed as barred by time. (B.S. Verma, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 23.10.2008 RMY