( 1 ) THOUGH both the respondents have been served, they have not thought it fit to appear and oppose this proceeding.

( 2 ) LEAVE granted.

( 3 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant.

( 4 ) THE Writ Petition No. 4172 of 1997 filed by the appellant before the Madhya pradesh High court was dismissed for default on 3/2/1998. The appellant, thereafter, filed an application for restoration of the said Writ Petition. That application was rejected as the court was of the opinion that there was no good ground for restoration of the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by that order the appellant filed letters Patent Appeal before that High court but that was also dismissed on the ground that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was quite proper and did not call for any interference.

( 5 ) WHAT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned counsel who was appearing in the Writ Petition could not remain present before the High court at the relevant time as he was busy in some other court. It was no doubt the duty of the learned counsel either to made an appropriate arrangement for conducting the matter in the High court when it was likely to be called out or to ret