SAMAR SANYAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is application for restoration of O.A. 972/ 91 which was dismissed on 11.6.98 for non prosecution on the basis of the statement made by Mr. N.C. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant was no longer interested in the matter. The applicant has filed another MA bearing No. 634/01 for condonation of delay in filing the MA for restoration of the O.A. 972/91.

(2.) It has been averred that the applicant had not instructed his advocate to state that he was not interested in the matter and he was always in touch with the advocate, but there was temporary communication gap in the middle of June, 1998 when the learned Counsel for the applicant got annoyed and made certain submission before the Tribunal. It has been further averred that after the applicant came to know about the fate of his O.A., he approached his Counsel Shri N.C. Chakraborty and obtained a copy of the order dated 11.6.98 on 1.9.98. Thereafter, on the advice of the said advocate he filed O.A. 1107/98 on 8.9.98 seeking the reliefs for which O.A. 972/91 was filed, but the said O.A. was dismissed on 19.11.98 on the submission made by his advocate, Mr. Chakraborty. After that, the applicant filed review application No. 1/99 along with an application for condonation of delay, but the same were dismissed on 17.8.01. It has been stated that the applicant's case was defeated even though his advocate did what he thought best to correct his initial mistake by allowing the O.A, 972/91 to go for default. It has been stated that the applicant should be protected from the abuse of the process already done and the O.A. No. 972/91 be restored.

(3.) BEFORE we proceed to state the rival contentions made on behalf of the parties, it is necessary to state in brief the background of this application.