- (1.) The present CAN application has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for restoration of the case being WPST No. 462 of 1998 which was dismissed for default by the order dated 13.11.1998. The petitioner initiated the WPST No. 462 of 1998 with a prayer for rescind/cancelled the order dated 20.081997 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal and also for an order restraining the respondent from filing up any vacancy in the post of Draughtsman in Purulia Construction Division (Irrigation). That case was dismissed for default on 13.11.1998 due to non-appearance of the petitioner. According to the petitioner his advocate on record was sick and was confined to bed since 9th November, 1998 and his clerk was also not attend the Court on 13.11.1998. As such when the matter was called nobody was present. The Court was also pleased to dismiss the case for default.
(2.) By filing supplementary affidavit the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner wholly relied on his learned Advocate who was entrusted with the case but hearing of the said restoration application could not be taken up for a considerable time due to laches on the part of the learned Advocate. Then the petitioner took a change of his erstwhile advocate and entrusted the matter to his present Advocate in 2006 and instructed him to take all necessary steps for restoration of the original application as well as for hearing the main matter expeditiously.
(3.) However, the present advocate mentioned the matter before the appropriate Division Bench for inclusion of the application for restoration but despite repeated mentioning the matter was not listed. On enquiry, he came to learn that the record was not traceable in the department for which the matter could not be listed. Then the petitioner filed another application being CAN No. 1867 of 2007 for reconstruction of the said application. Accordingly, thereafter, the reconstruction was made by the concerned department as per the direction of the Court. The petitioner categorically stated that he was not at fault at any point of time for delay so caused in the matter and the said inordinate delay can only be attributed to the erstwhile advocate of the petitioner as well as for the concerned department.;