JUDGMENT 1. AN application for restoration of the Rule Nisi since dismissed for default for not putting the requisities for service of the Rule Nisi on the respondents in terms of the order passed by this Court on 31-7-83 has been filed by the petitioners. It appears that, the writ petition was moved' with notice to the Central Government and as a matter of fact the learned Counsels also appeared for the Central Government at the time of issuing the Rule Nisi on may 24, 1982. It, however, appears that no memo of appearance was filed on behalf of any of the Central Government respondents. As a result, the office of this Court put up a note that the petitioners were required to put in the requisite number of copies for service on the respondents and also the cost of service. It also appears from the records that the application for interim order made by the petitioners was also contested on behalf of the Government respondents by the learned Counsels appearing for such Respondents before this Court and it appears that against the interim order passed by this Court, an appeal was preferred by the Respondents and the interim order passed by the Trial Court was thereafter vacated by the Appeal Court after a contested hearing. It, however, appears that against the order passed by the Appeal court vacating the interim order, a special leave petition has since been filed by the petitioners. The said special leave petition is pending final disposal. But the Supreme Court in the special leave petition has observed that the writ petition should be disposed of as early as possible and the learned Judge in disposing of the writ petition will consider the question of maintainability of the writ petition before this Court independently without being, influenced by the observation of the appeal Court. 2. IT also appears that an application for addition of parties was made and after a contested hearing such application was allowed and memo of appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. 10 has also been filed. But since no appearance was filed on behalf of any of the Government Respondents the matter appeared before this Court on 10. 3. 83 for necessary direction regarding filing of requisite copies for service on the non-appearing respondents and also the cost of service and it appears that on 10. 3. 10 has also been filed. But since no appearance was filed on behalf of any of the Government Respondents the matter appeared before this Court on 10. 3. 83 for necessary direction regarding filing of requisite copies for service on the non-appearing respondents and also the cost of service and it appears that on 10. 3. 83 this Court passed' an order that the requisites under report should be put in within two weeks from that date in default the same would be placed for final orders. Such requisites in terms of the Court's direction had not been put in. The matter was again placed before this Court for final order on 31. 3. 83. This Court passed a final order to the effect that if the requisites under report would not be put within two weeks from the said date, the rule would stand discharged. It appears that the requisites had not been put in within two weeks from that date. But the requisites thereafter were put on 19. 4. 83 which is 5 days beyond the time granted by this court on 31. 3. 83. From the affidavit-in-reply filed to this application for restoration, it appears that the Central Government Advocate wrote to M/s. Khaitan and Company, Advocates and Solicitors representing to the petitioners that five copies of the writ petitions would be sent to the Central Government Advocate for further action on behalf of the respondents and it was stated in the said letter of the Central Government Advocate that as the respondents were many and located in different places outside Calcutta one copy of the writ petition since served on the Central Government Advocate would not be sufficient. It may be noted that before the issuance of the rule Nisi a copy of the writ petition was served on the Central Government Advocate according to Rules framed by this Court and as aforesaid the Counsel appeared before this Court representing the Central Government. The said letter of the Central Government Advocate from the Branch Secretariat of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company affairs at Calcutta is Annexure 'a' to the: affidavit-in-reply. 3. The said letter of the Central Government Advocate from the Branch Secretariat of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company affairs at Calcutta is Annexure 'a' to the: affidavit-in-reply. 3. IT appears that the Advocate on record of the petitioners thereafter informed the" Central Government Advocate in writing that the Central Government advocate should inform him as to the 1 Respondents he would be representing and it appears from the letter dated June 1, 1982 written by the Central Government Advocate from the Branch secretariat of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs that the Branch Secretary would take steps to defend the interest of all the concerned department of the Union of India who had been impleaded as respondents in the' writ petition and as such the petitioner should send four more copies of the writ petitions to the Central Government Advocate so that the Branch Secretariat could supply the writ petitions to the concerned department for the purpose of taking instructions from the concerned departments and for defending the: interest of such concerned departments. It appears that the Counsel of the petitioners Mr. A. it. Dey thereafter informed the Central Government Advocate by his letter dated June 3, 1982 that as four copies as asked for by; the, central Government Advocate had been supplied, the petitioners would not furnish any further copy in the office of this Court for the service on the respondents and the fact of service through the Branch Secretariat would be made known before this Court. 4. IT, however, appears that the Central Government Advocate by his subsequent letter dated June 9, 1982 informed the Counsel of the petitioners about the receipt of the said four copies of the writ petition and further informed that the copies since sent by the Counsel for the petitioners had been sent to respondents No. 1, 3, 6 and 7. But as there were nine Government Respondents in total, five more copies of the writ petition should be sent at an early date so that such copies would also be forwarded to the said respondents so as to obtain instructions from them and to defend them in the writ petition. It appears that thereafter the petitioners also sent further five copies as asked for by the Central Government Advocate on June 25, 1982. It appears that thereafter the petitioners also sent further five copies as asked for by the Central Government Advocate on June 25, 1982. It, however, appears that till today no formal appearance by filing power has been made on behalf of any of the Government Respondents. As no formal appearance was made on behalf of the Central Government Respondents, the office reported to this Court for necessary direction about the filing of service copies and also cost of services. Mr. Bajoria, the learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioners has contended that in view of the fact that the writ; petition was moved with notice to the respondents and in view of the fact that the Central Government Counsel had, actually appeared before this Court on various dates and contested on behalf of: the Central Government Respondents at. the time' of passing the interim order, the petitioners were justified in proceeding that the Central Government respondents have entered appearance in the Rule Nisi and there would be no necessity of effecting service of the writ petition through the office of this Court. He has also contended that even thereafter as the Central Government Advocate asked for copies of the writ petition for all the Government Respondents, such copies had been sent to the Central government Advocate on a clear assurance that the Central Government Counsel will represent the interest of all the concerned departments and the Government respondents since impleaded in the writ petition and for the said purpose it would be necessary to forward copies of the writ petition to each of the respondents. Mr. Bajoria has also contended that after the copies had been sent to the Central Government Advocate on the clear assurance that the Central Government Counsel will represent all the respondents, there was no necessity for the petitioner to take steps for service of the writ petitions on any of the Government Respondents. He has also submitted that it cannot be contended by the Government respondents that they have suffered any prejudice for not putting the requisite copies in the department of this Court for formal service on the said respondents. Mr. He has also submitted that it cannot be contended by the Government respondents that they have suffered any prejudice for not putting the requisite copies in the department of this Court for formal service on the said respondents. Mr. Bajoria has contended that on the contrary, the petitioners have suffered immense prejudice for the lapses on the part of the learned Government advocate in not filing any formal memo of appearance on behalf of the Government respondents although copies had been served on the Central Government advocate about almost one year before the said final order of default was passed by this Court. Mr. Bajoria has also contended that in the affidavit-in-opposition the Respondents have contended that the application for restoration is not maintainable because the same was filed on 6. 6. 83 although the Rule stood discharged after two weeks from the date of passing the said order on 31. 3. 83. Mr. Bajoria has submitted that although the Government Respondents are contending that the application for restoration is got to be filed within thirty days from the date of the "disposal of the writ petition viz. 14. 4. 83, the said contention is not correct because the application for restoration has been made in connection with the writ proceeding and not in a civil proceeding under the Code of Civil procedure. He has submitted that under the amended provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, the writ proceeding has been excluded from the civil proceeding. Accordingly, the period of limitation for such restoration application is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act and the period of' limitation under Article 137 is three years. Mr. Bajoria has also contended that although the respondents could not suffer any prejudice in the facts and circumstances stated hereinbefore, and although copies had been served on the Central Government Advocate' for each of the Government Respondents, the petitioners in compliance of the Court's Order passed on 31. 3. 83 also put in the requisite copies in the department of this Court but unfortunately due to the mistake of the clerk of the Counsel for the petitioners, such copies were put in out of time by five days only. The petitioners have given explanation as to why the petitioners had been proceeding bonafide that no copy was required to be put in the department in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioners have given explanation as to why the petitioners had been proceeding bonafide that no copy was required to be put in the department in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted before this Court that service had already been made on the Government Respondents through the Central Government Counsel as requested by the said Central Government Advocate of the Branch Secretariat. Mr. Bajoria has therefore submitted that in the instant case, it cannot be contended that the petitioners are guilty of any deliberate laches or negligence in proceeding with the writ petition and for not putting the requisities the' Government respondents had no occasion to suffer any prejudice. 5. IN reply to the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Bajoria, Mr. Chakraborty, the learned Counsel of the respondents, has contended that Article 137 has no manner of application because for not putting the requisites within a fortnight from the date of the passing the order,, the Rule stood discharged and no proceeding was therefore pending. Hence,, article 137 cannot have any manner of application because the same applies to a pending proceeding. I am, however, unable to accept the said contention of Mr. Chakraborty and in my view for the purpose of restoration of a writ petition since dismissed for default, Article 137 clearly applies and the period of limitation] is three years. It is not correct to contend that application under Article 137 can only be made in a pending proceeding and not for restoration of a writ proceeding. It may be noted that the order of restoration of a writ proceeding is made in the exercise of inherent power f this Court and no other period of limitation has been prescribed. It is not correct to contend that application under Article 137 can only be made in a pending proceeding and not for restoration of a writ proceeding. It may be noted that the order of restoration of a writ proceeding is made in the exercise of inherent power f this Court and no other period of limitation has been prescribed. I am also satisfied that in the facts of the case, no prejudice has been caused to the Government respondents but on the contrary because of the laches and negligence on the part of the Government advocate to file his memo of appearance within a reasonable date which in no case should be about a year, there had been occasion for this Court to direct for furnishing copies for service and the order of dismissal had to be passed without the knowledge of service of writ petitions on the Central Government; advocate for all the respondents on a clear representation that the interest of all the respondents would be represented. I am satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no deliberate laches and negligence on the part of petitioners and they have explained the default to the satisfaction of this Court. 6. IN the circumstances, this application is allowed and the Rule Nisi is restored to file. As the Government Respondents have been served with copies of writ petition through the Central Government Counsel, no service of the writ petition need be made on any of the Government respondents. But since no appearance has yet been made on behalf of the Government Respondents, the office is directed to effect the service of the Rule only on the Government respondent as early as possible. If, however, the Government Counsel files Ms memo of appearance in the office of this court, the Rule will be served on the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that the special leave petition before the Supreme Court had been filed at a point of time when the Rule Nisi stood discharged in terms of the order passed by this Court. The special leave petition must therefore be held as not maintainable. It is not necessary for this court to make any observation in that regard and the respondents will be free to draw the attention of the Supreme court about the said facts. The special leave petition must therefore be held as not maintainable. It is not necessary for this court to make any observation in that regard and the respondents will be free to draw the attention of the Supreme court about the said facts. There will be no order as to costs.