WP(C) 2324/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH Heard Mr. Bhati, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Chakravar ty, learned Central Government Counsel. This writ petition was dismissed for default on 22/3/2007 and the interi m order passed on 28/3/2003 stood vacated. On an interim application registered as MC 1610/2007, the writ petition was restored to file on 25/5/2007. No steps t hereafter for service of notice on the respondent No. 2 has been taken by the wr it petitioner. As a matter of fact, this writ petition after being restored on t he aforementioned date has been laid before this Court for the first time therea fter. Mr. Bhati prays for three days time to take steps for service of notice on the respondent No. 2. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not consider it ap propriate to accede to the prayer made. The writ petition is closed for non-pros ecution. The office would submit an explanation on the administrative side as to why the writ petition though restored to file on 25/5/2007 had not been listed t ill date. The explanation so called for should reach the Judge Administration, i n course of the day.