WRIT PETITION 4513/2000 on 11 December 2003

ORDER

The present Interlocutory Application has been filed to restore the writ petitionregistered as WP(C) 4513/2000 which was dismissed for default vide order dated11.12.2003.

2. For ready reference, the order dated 11.12.2003, passed in the writ petition isextracted herein below –

“BEFORE

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY

None appears.

Seen the Office Note dated 08.09.2003. No steps have been taken for service of notice on the Respondents No. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 by the petitioner.Dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-Amitava RoyJudge”

3. The aforesaid order makes it clear that apart from the fact that none was there torepresent the petitioner, even steps were not taken.

4. We have heard Shri S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants. We have alsoheard Shri J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal, representing respondentNos. 2, 5, 6 & 7 as well as Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, NRC, representingrespondent No. 4. None appears for the Union of India.

5. Before proceeding to decide the present Interlocutory Application filed for restorationof the writ petition, we are guided by the settled principles that in matters of restoration, aliberal view may be taken and the parties may be given an opportunity to contest the case onmerits. With that backdrop, let us proceed to adjudicate the present Interlocutory Application.

6. In the writ petition, an order dated 09.08.1999, passed by the learned memberForeigners Tribunal, Nagaon, passed in F.T. case No. 2423/1988, was put to challenge. By theimpugned order, the learned Tribunal held that the applicants and their parents wereforeigners of the stream 01.01.1996 to 25.03.1971. As indicated above, when the writpetition was taken up for consideration on 11.12.2013, the same was dismissed because ofnon-prosecution.

7. What is intriguing in this case is the inordinate and almost inexplicable delay in filingthe present application for restoration. On a specific query from this Court regarding thereasons for such delay, Shri Chouhan, learned counsel, had drawn the attention of thestatements made in paragraphs 4, 5 & 7. The aforesaid statements, in the opinion of thisCourt, are not sufficient explanation for filing this application after almost 9 (nine) years.Rather, a perusal of the Interlocutory Application would show that the applicants lacked due diligence in pursuing the remedies.

8. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no case has been able to made out forcondoning the delay of more than 9 (nine) years for filing the restoration application andaccordingly the instant Interlocutory Application is dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant