Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) This is an application for restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed by me for want of prosecution on 9.1.2003. The order dated 9.1.2003 is as under: " The lawyers have gone on lightning strike disturbing the court proceedings. List has been revised. Since none appears to press this writ petition the same is dismissed for non-prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated."
(3.) The counsel for the petitioner submits that he could not appear due to strike of lawyers on 9.1.2003 and he had no knowledge about the order dated 9.1.2003 till 3.1.2005 when he came to Allahabad with regard to different cases of the unit and made enquiry from the Computer Section about the present case and came to know that the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 9.1.2003. He further submits that the delay was not intentional and there was no knowledge about the order and restoration application has been moved on 6.1.2005 without further delay when he acquired knowledge that the writ petition was dismissed on 9.1.2003.;