HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 881 of 2025 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. 1. Heard Shri P.K. Ganguli, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Aditya Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.3 and 4. 2. The present intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by learned Single Judge on the Restoration Application No.3 of 2025 and Delay Condonation Application No.2 of 2025 in Writ-A No.13846 of 1993 whereby the aforesaid two applications have been rejected and a cost of Rs.10,000/- has also been imposed for not coming to the court with clean hands and the order dated 03.05.2011 by which the writ petition was dismissed in default. The order passed in Writ-A No.4597 of 2025 though part of common order, is not under challenge in the instant appeal. 3. It appears from the record that the appellant alongwith proforma respondents no.5 and 6 filed Writ-A No.13846 of 1993 before this court and it came to be dismissed in default on 03.05.2011. The said order is as follows: "Nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner to press the present writ petition even in the revised reading of the list. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashutosh Ganguli, Pranab Kumar Ganguli Counsel for Respondent(s) : Aditiya Kumar Singh, C.S.C. Anees Khan .....Appellant(s) Nagar Palika, Faridpur And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Interim order, if any, stands discharged." 4. The appellant and the proforma respondents, thereafter, filed a restoration application with inordinate delay of 14 years alleging that they were not aware of the dismissal of the writ petition as their original counsel Shri Sudhanshu Dhulia was subsequently elevated to the Bench of this Court and intimation of the said fact was not given to them. Therefore, the writ petition came to be dismissed in default. They came to know of the dismissal of the writ petition only after they were suspended vide an order passed on 07.09.2024 and, thereafter, the restoration application was filed. 5. In paragraph nos.5 and 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the following explanation was given: "5. That aforesaid writ petition was filed by Sri Sudhanshu Dhulia, as at the said given point of time, he was counsel practicing before this Hon'ble Court. 6. That subsequent given point of time, Sri Sudhashu Dhulia was elevated to Bench and as a consequence of same no intimation could be given in relation to pendency of the said writ petition and therefore, writ petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 03.05.2011." 6. In the counter affidavit, the explanation given by the petitioners regarding lack of knowledge relating to dismissal of the writ petition was categorically denied and it was stated as follows: "5. That the contents of paragraph nos.4, 5 and 6 of the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application in restoration application being a matter of record, hence need no reply. However it is further submitted at the time of dismissing the aforesaid writ petition on 03.05.2011 for want of prosecution, there was name of three more counsel except Mr. Sudhanshu Dhulia printed in the order dated 03.05.2011, 1.Mr. K. S. Chaudhary, 2.Mr. R. K. Pandey and 3.Mr. S.K. Shukla were also counsel for the petitioner. 6. That the contents of paragraph no.7 of the affidavit filed in support of SPLAD No. 881 of 2025 2 delay condonation application in restoration application are misconceived, hence denied. In reply thereto it is submitted that the services of the petitioner only survived on the interim order passed on 23.04.1993 in Writ-A No. 13846 of 1993. After dismissing the writ petition on 03.05.2011 under non present of counsel of the petitioner and also discharged interim order the services of the petitioner has came to end, but the petitioner without any moving restoration application well within limitation period hide from authority and getting salary as unauthorized employee. It is further submitted that the act of the petitioner is unlawful and this reason he was given show cause notice, but not found satisfactory reply, then he was suspended by the Chairman and instituted a departmental inquiry against him." 7. It is not disputed by Shri P.K. Ganguli, learned counsel for the appellant that after elevation of the previous counsel of the appellant, he and other petitioners engaged two other counsel namely, Mr. R.K. Pandey and Mr. S.K. Shukla and they were also not present at the time, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. Their names were also duly printed in the cause title as is evident from the order of dismissal of the writ petition in default dated 03.05.2011. Thus, learned Single Judge has found the explanation to be palpably false and has accordingly rejected the delay condonation application and the restoration application and a cost of Rs.10,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioners for not approaching the court with clean hands. 8. As the explanation has been found to be false, and the factum of the writ petitioners having engaged two other counsel after elevation of their previous counsel is not disputed, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge. We are also of the view that a litigant, who had taken an apparently false stand, was not entitled to any indulgence. 9. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. October 27, 2025 Ankit. SPLAD No. 881 of 2025 3 (Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad