Sh. Umesh Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Sh. Umesh Kumar, filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) 13975/2024) challenging an order of the Appellate Authority dated February 19, 2024. This order had rejected the petitioner's appeal against the cancellation of his GST registration, deeming the appeal to be time-barred. The writ petition was initially dismissed on January 13, 2025, due to the petitioner's failure to place the Appellate Authority's order on record despite multiple opportunities. The petitioner then filed an application under Order IX Rule 4 of the CPC read with Delhi High Court Rules seeking restoration of the writ petition. On July 3, 2025, the Appellate Authority's order was placed on record, but the petitioner remained absent.

Held

The Court considered the application for restoration of the writ petition, W.P.(C) 13975/2024, which had been dismissed on January 13, 2025, for failure to place the order of the Appellate Authority on record. Although the Appellate Authority's order dated February 19, 2024, which rejected the petitioner's appeal against GST registration cancellation as time-barred, was eventually placed on record, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner on the date of hearing. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for restoration of the writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that a restoration application will not be allowed if the applicant remains absent and fails to pursue the matter diligently, even if the procedural defect leading to the initial dismissal is subsequently rectified.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition, W.P.(C) 13975/2024, should be restored to the file, considering the petitioner's application under Order IX Rule 4 of the CPC and the subsequent filing of the Appellate Authority's order. Petitioner's contention (implied by the application for restoration): The petitioner sought restoration of the writ petition, implying a desire to pursue the challenge to the Appellate Authority's order. The subsequent filing of the order suggests an attempt to rectify the previous deficiency. Respondents' contention (implied by their appearance and the court's dismissal): The respondents, Union of India & Ors., were represented. The court's dismissal of the restoration application, despite the order being filed, indicates that the respondents' position, or the court's own procedural assessment, did not favor restoration.