IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 348 of 2006 S.C. Handa …Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others. …Respondents. Mr. N.N. Pandey, Advocate for Mr. S.C. Dhasmana, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for non-applicants/respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for non-applicant/respondent no. 3. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) MCC No. 732 of 2009 Learned counsel for the non-applicant/respondents vehemently opposed the restoration of the main writ petition by recall of the order passed by this Court on 5.5.2009. In this behalf, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the instant writ petition was earlier dismissed for non-prosecution thrice before the order dated 5.5.2009 was passed dismissing it for non prosecution for the fourth time. It is further contended that on the earlier three occasions, the writ petition was restored, yet the instant practice cannot be permitted indefinitely. Despite the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents and despite the inconvenience caused to this Court, we are of the view that it is in the interest of justice that a person, who approaches this Court is able to obtain an order disposing of his claim on merits. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the order dated 5.5.2009 should be recalled. Despite our aforesaid view, we are also satisfied that since the applicant/petitioner has repeatedly erred and the order dated 5.5.2009 was passed on the fourth occasion dismissing the writ petition for non-prosecution, 2 it is essential to impose exemplary costs on the applicant/petitioner. Accordingly, the instant application seeking recall of the order dated 5.5.2009 is allowed subject to the payment of Rs. 10,000/- as the costs. The aforesaid costs shall be deposited by the applicant/petitioner with the Bar Association of the High Court at Nainital, within one month from today and the receipt thereof shall be placed on the record of this case. In case the aforesaid costs are not deposited within the time stipulated hereinabove, the instant recall application will be deemed to have been dismissed summarily. For the same reason, as has been depicted hereinabove, the Delay Condonation Application (CLMA No. 8481 of 2009) filed by the applicant/petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the instant Restoration Application is hereby condoned. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 25.3.2010 Rathour