[2025:RJ-JP:47911] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Writ Restoration Application No. 606/2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2254/1995 Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Patiram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Gram And Post - Savora, Tehsil - Kumher, District Bharatpur. ----Applicant-Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Dy. Inspector General Of Police (PHQ), R.A.C. Range, Jaipur. 3. The Commandant, 6Th Battalion, Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, Dholpur (Raj.) ----Non-applicant-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Gy.GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 26/11/2025 1. This restoration application has been filed by the petitioner for restoration of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2254/1995 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 24.09.1997. 2. The writ petition No.2254/1995 was filed as regards termination of services of the petitioner. 3. The writ petition was dismissed because no one was present on behalf of the petitioner on 24.09.1997 when the case was called for. The writ petition was dismissed with the order as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:47911] (2 of 2) [WRES-606/2025] “The case was listed before this Court on 11.12.1995, however, nobody was present on behalf of petitioner and the writ petition was dismissed in default. Application for restoration was filed by the petitioner, however, when the restoration application come up for hearing before the Court on 10.01.1997 on that day also no body was present on behalf of the petitioner. However, looking to the reasons given in the application, the restoration application was allowed and the case was restored. Again, the case is listed today and nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner, even the case has been taken in the revised list.” 4. From the order dated 24.09.1997 it is revealed that earlier also the writ petition No.2254/1995 was dismissed in default, though on an application of restoration, the same was restored on 10.01.1997, even though on that date also no one was present on behalf of the petitioner. 5. The present restoration application has been filed on 09.09.2025 i.e. after about 28 years. In view of the aforesaid material facts that earlier the writ petition was dismissed in default because no one was appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 11.12.1995 however, on restoration application, the same was restored on 10.01.1997 and that too when no one was present on behalf of the petitioner now again the writ petition was dismissed for non-appearance on 24.09.1997 and more particularly the fact that the present restoration application has been filed after 28 years, this Court is not inclined to restore the writ petition. 6. Accordingly, this restoration application is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /25