High Court upholds dismissal of writ petition due to delay and lack of knowledge. Supreme Court advises exploring legal options.

The High Court declined to set aside the order dismissing the writ petition for default, citing the delay from 1981 to 1990 and lack of knowledge of dismissal despite renewals of Bank Guarantees. The Supreme Court acknowledged the Solicitor's truthful disclosure but upheld the High Court's decision, advising the petitioners to respond to the notice and explore alternative legal options. The Court addressed concerns about the Solicitor's professional conduct, stating adverse comments were unwarranted. Despite clarifications, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed, affirming the High Court's ruling.

---

---

Issues:
1. Setting aside an order dismissing a writ petition for default.
2. Condonation of delay and restoration of the writ petition.
3. Professional conduct of the Solicitor and implications on the case.

Analysis:
1. The High Court declined to set aside an order dismissing the writ petition for default. The petition challenging a show cause notice was filed in 1981 and dismissed in 1990. The petitioners sought to set aside the dismissal, stating the non-appearance was due to the Office Clerk's lapse. The Counsel argued that the litigant should not suffer for the Counsel's mistake. Renewals of Bank Guarantees post-dismissal were mentioned to show lack of knowledge of dismissal. The High Court did not consider the personal affidavit of the Solicitor, leading to concerns about implications on professional rectitude.

2. The Supreme Court acknowledged the truthful disclosure in the Solicitor's affidavit but noted that condonation of delay and restoration of the writ petition may not be justified. Despite the subject matter's importance and potential hardship from dismissal after ten years, the Court found it inappropriate to interfere with the High Court's discretion. The petitioners were advised to respond to the notice and pursue other legal remedies if necessary.

3. The apprehension regarding the professional rectitude of the Solicitor was addressed by the Supreme Court, stating that adverse comments were not justified. The Court emphasized that any implications in the High Court's order reflecting negatively on the Solicitor should be deleted. Despite this clarification, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, considering the nature of the case and the time elapsed since the petition's filing. The Special Leave Petition was ultimately dismissed, affirming the High Court's ruling.

---