JUDGMENT : We have heard learned Counsel on both sides. 2. The High Court has declined to set aside an order dismissing the writ petition for default. The Writ Petition No. 1499 of 1981 challenging a show cause notice dated 20th April, 1981 respecting levy of duties of excise was filed in the year 1981. It was listed for final hearing on the Weekly Board of the Division Bench of the High Court on 13th August, 1990 and again on 20th August, 1990. It was dismissed for default of appearance on 23rd August, 1990. Petitioners filed Civil Application No. 722 of 1992, one year and 129 days after the dismissal for setting aside of the dismissal and restoration of the Writ Petition. The High Court has by its order dated 7th February, 1992 declined petitioners' prayer. 3. Shri Gopal Subramaniam, for the petitioner, submits that though the default of appearance of the Solicitor before the Court was indeed regrettable, the affidavit filed by Solicitor himself discloses beyond doubt that the non-appearance was not wilful but entirely owing to the lapse of the Office Clerk; and that the refusal to set aside the dismissal might constitute a reflection on the propriety of the professional conduct of the Solicitor. Counsel further says that this is an eminently fit case where the principle that a litigant should not suffer for the lapse of Counsel should apply. Shri Subramaniam sought to point out that even the subsequent events and conduct indicate that the petitioner had had no knowledge of the dismissal as even after the order of dismissal, the petitioner continued to furnish, and the Department continued to accept, renewals of Bank Guarantee pursuant to the interlocutory order, a circumstance inconsistent with any knowledge on the part of the petitioner or its Solicitors of the dismissal. Learned Counsel referred to the renewals of the Bank Guarantees made on 25th September, 1991, 9th October, 1991 and 6th December, 1991 respectively. 4. The apprehension of Shri Gopal Subramaniam that the refusal to restore the writ petition might imply reflection on the professional rectitude of the Solicitor may not be justified. Indeed, the High Court has not adverted to the personal affidavit filed by the learned Solicitor. The High Court has merely indicated that the Solicitor cannot disown the consequences of the lapses of his clerk. Indeed, the High Court has not adverted to the personal affidavit filed by the learned Solicitor. The High Court has merely indicated that the Solicitor cannot disown the consequences of the lapses of his clerk. But, having regard to frank and truthful disclosure of the circumstances in the affidavit of the Solicitor - which we are inclined to accept - any implication of any adverse comment on the motives or bona fides or professional rectitude of the learned Solicitor is not justified. If there are any observations in the High Court's order which may be susceptible of any such pejorative implications, they shall stand deleted. 5. But that may not, we are afraid, make a difference to the conclusion that, in the circumstances, condonation of delay and restoration of the writ petition may not be justified. It is relevant here to take note of the nature of the subject-matter of the writ petition and of likelihood of any serious or irreversible hardship that its dismissal may entail. The writ petition challenged a show cause notice. An order of stay was made on 21st May, 1981. The petition was pending for nearly ten years. It is stated at the Bar that the point raised in the writ petition has since been covered by a pronouncement of the High Court in another case which is said to support petitioners' contention. Even if the order of dismissal of the writ petition assumes finality it is yet open to the petitioner to respond to the notice in the statutory proceedings and show cause. If any further steps are taken by the authorities pursuant to the show cause notice, petitioners may have recourse to and pursue other remedies available at law. Taking an overall view, in our opinion, it will not be appropriate to interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court. With these observations, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.