AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2594 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6337 OF 2003 The Union of India & Anr. ... Applicants Vs. S. Jeyaraman & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Anil Singh with Mr. D.A. Dubey and Mr. A.D. Kango for the applicants. Mr. Rahul G. Walia for respondent 1. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : 22ND APRIL, 2009. P.C.:- 1. In this civil application, the applicants – Union of India has prayed that delay in filing the civil application be condoned and that conditional Order dated 18/3/2006 passed by the Division of this Court (V.G. Palshikar & V.R. Kingaonkar, JJ.) be set aside and the petition be restored to file. AJN 2 2. On 18/3/2006 the Division Bench presided over by Justice V.G. Palshikar passed the following order : “1. The petitioner is given four weeks time to do the needful failing which the matter shall be dismissed without further reference to the court.” 3. Pursuant to this order, the petition stood dismissed for non- prosecution on 5/6/2006. The office note to that effect is annexed to the civil application. According to the office, therefore, the office objection was not removed. The office objection was that the respondents were not served. 4. We have heard Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. He drew our attention to Order dated 11/11/2003 passed by the Division Bench presided over by Justice A.P. Shah (as he then was). On that day, Rule was issued and the court noted that Mr. Walia waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent. Mr. Singh submitted that the petition is dismissed AJN 3 because the respondents were not served. Respondent 1 is the contesting respondent. However, since Mr. Walia was appearing for the contesting respondent and he had waived service for the contesting respondent, the question of serving the contesting respondent did not arise. Mr. Singh drew our attention to paragraph 6 of the application and submitted that concerned officers of the applicants were not informed about the court's order and therefore, assuming that the applicants had to take some steps, the same could not be taken. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the petition may be restored to file and the interim order passed by this court may also be restored. 5. We have heard Mr. Walia, learned counsel for respondent 1. He has strenuously opposed the restoration application. He submitted that no acceptable reasons are given for restoration of the application. He submitted that the civil application clearly indicates that the applicants were extremely negligent and, hence, no indulgence be shown to them. Mr. Walia submitted that in any case, interim relief may not be restored because the petition was AJN 4 dismissed way back in 2006 and we are now in 2009. He submitted that the circumstances and the law have undergone a change. We note that Mr. Singh has stated that there is no change in the circumstances. 6. In the circumstances of the case and considering the fact that Mr. Walia had waived service for the contesting respondent, we feel that in the interest of justice, the petition needs to be restored after condoning the delay. However, it is not possible for us to restore the interim relief because about three years have elapsed after the interim relief stood vacated. It is not possible for us to state whether there is any change in the circumstances from 2006 to 2009. We, therefore, condone the delay and restore the petition to the file. Needless to say that it shall stand admitted as per order dated 11/11/2003, however for the purposes of interim relief the applicants may approach the regular court. On that aspect, we have not expressed any opinion. Civil application is disposed of. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] AJN 5 [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]