JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner was dismissed for want of prosecution on 27.08.2003. The restoration application filed by the appellant/writ petitioner on 12.03.2018 seeking restoration, after condoning the delay of 5280 days, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 14.03.2018. 2. We heard Mr. Vinodanand Barthwal, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner and Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Brief Holder on behalf of the respondents. 3. The affidavit filed in support of the application for restoration of the writ petition states that the appellant/writ petitioner had assigned his case to one Mr. Meherban Singh Negi and Mr. Saxena Advocate, Allahabad, but they left the case and never informed about the status of the case. The Advocates had assured that they will look after the case of the appellant/writ petitioner. It is further stated that as the appellant/writ petitioner belongs to New Vikas Colony, Srinagar Road Pauri, District Pauri and he was not in a position to visit frequently to the High Court of Allahabad and Uttarakhand at Nainital to look after his case. Thereafter, it is stated that in the second week of February, 2018, the deponent along with Mr. Vinodanand Barhthwal, Advocate visited Nainital and requested him to enquire about the status of the case and it was found that the case was dismissed on 27.08.2003. It is stated that there was unintentional default. Later, however, we notice the following averment in paragraph no. 8 of the application: “8. That in the last week of January, 2017, after got informed by Mr. Vinodanand Barthwal Advocate about the aforesaid order dated 27.08.2003 passed by this Hon’ble Court, it was advised the deponent that the above noted restoration application is required to recall the said order dated 27.08.2003.” It is stated that there is delay of 4832 days. 4. It is true, on perusal of the order-sheet in the writ petition, that though the case was transferred from the Allahabad High Court, no notice was issued by this Court. We are also conscious that ordinarily in such cases, when the cases are unrepresented, when the matter is transferred to this Court after the Reorganisation, notice should be issued. But here, there are two different aspects. 5. Firstly, we notice that the full name of Mr. Saxena, as such, is not given. We are also conscious that ordinarily in such cases, when the cases are unrepresented, when the matter is transferred to this Court after the Reorganisation, notice should be issued. But here, there are two different aspects. 5. Firstly, we notice that the full name of Mr. Saxena, as such, is not given. The authority of Mr. Saxena is not seen on the record. We also notice that as far as Mr. Meherban Singh Negi is concerned, he shifted his practice to Uttarakhand and, in fact, he became the Advocate General of this State. So, this is not a case of appellant before us, that a lawyer in Allahabad being engaged and the case coming up before the Uttarakhand High Court after the reorganization and there being nobody to represent the party in the High Court of Uttarakhand. Here, the counsel engaged, who had initially filed the writ petition, apparently, started practicing in the Uttarakhand High Court. 6. Secondly, we also notice the contradictory stand taken by the appellant/writ petitioner. On the one hand, he states that he came to know about the order in February, 2018; on the other hand, in the later paragraph, he states that he came to know about it much earlier. Therefore, we would think that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in the facts of this case, refusing to allow the application for restoration of the writ petition, is correct and needs no interference. 7. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to cost.