1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. MCA (REST) NO.1245 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2829 OF 1993 (Wasudeo Abhimanji Bhore .v. State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Smt. Suhasini Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner. Shri J.B. Jaiswal, AGP for the respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 25TH NOVEMBER, 2008 Heard. This is an application for restoration of Writ Petition No.2829 of 1993. The Writ Petition No.2829 of 1993 was dismissed for non appearance of the petitioner on 8th September, 2008. Normally when the writ petition is fixed for final hearing and came to be dismissed in default because the Advocate did not appear and when the reason given in the application is that the Advocate remained absent because the Advocate failed to mark the case on that date, usually Court restores the writ petition. But, in our opinion, this petition is not usual and this petition does not deserve to be restored. The petitioner in the petition has challenged 2 the notice and order made for requisition of the land of the petitioner for rehabilitation of the flood affected persons. The petitioner secured stay of that order with the result that order could not be implemented. The matter was fixed for final hearing before the Court on 20th February, 2008. On that date, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment on the ground that she has personal difficulty. Therefore, the matter was adjourned for four weeks. Thereafter the matter appeared on board on 10th July, 2008. Nobody appeared for the petitioner, therefore, the Court adjourned the matter for two weeks. The matter again appeared on board on 30th July, 2008. The learned Counsel for the petitioner again sought an adjournment and the matter came to be adjourned for 11.08.2008. It appears that the matter reached on 13.08.2008 for final hearing and again the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment and the matter was adjourned for four weeks. On 08.09.2008, she was absent, therefore, the matter was dismissed. Therefore, when the present application was before us, we offered to the learned Counsel for the petitioner to argue the petition on merits. We pointed out to the Advocate that the land of the petitioner was requisitioned under Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. 3 We wanted to find out from the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to what is the illegality in the order ? The learned Counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to point out what is the illegality in the order and she is also not in a position to point out what are the provisions of Bombay Land Requisition Act. It appears from the attitude of the petitioner that the petitioner wants to keep the petition pending by seeking adjournments from time to time. Considering this background in our opinion, it would not be in the interest of justice to restore the petition. Hence, the Miscellaneous Civil application No.1245 of 2008 is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.