P. Naveen Rao, J.

This petition is filed to condone delay of 2423 days in filing WPMP (SR) No.68048 of 2017 to restore the writ petition by recalling the order dated 19.7.2010 dismissing the writ petition for non-prosecution as there was no representation for petitioner when case was called.

2. Heard Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader (TG) for respondents.

3. Learned Senior Counsel astutely projected the delay of 2423 days as can be condoned. He would plead that the delay is not deliberate and wilful and for the absence of Counsel on a given day to represent this case, members of petitioner society should not suffer. The delay was neither wilful nor deliberate, but occasioned on the wrong assumption that case is pending and that the Counsel is prosecuting the case. They came to know only recently when they were pursuing other pending case in this Court and immediately thereafter this application is filed. He would submit that quantum of delay is not relevant and what is crucial for the Court to consider such application is whether party has shown sufficient cause In a given case like the one on hand, though delay of 2423 days looks huge, since petitioner was never put on notice about dismissal of the case and is bona fide in his assertion, the delay can be condoned.

4. He would implore that though sufficient opportunity was afforded, respondents have not filed counters in this petition and it is deemed that they are not opposing the prayer of petitioner and, therefore, delay can be condoned.

5. On the scope of condoning ti delay in filing such petitions, he cited follow precedent decisions.

(i) Rafiq and another v. Munshilal and another, (1981) 2 SCC 788;

(ii) Manohar v. State of Karnataka and others, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 218;

(iii) N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 : 1998 ALD (S.C.S.N.) 26-3;

(iv) State of Bihar and another v. Abhay Chand Bothra, (2000) 9 SCC.

(v) Davinder Pal Sehgal and another v. Partap Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. L and others, (2002) 3 SCC 156;

(vi) Balmukund Arora v. State, AIR 2005 Raj. 228; and

(vii) Ram Kumar Gupta and others v. Har Prasad and another, (2O10) 1 SCC 391.

6. Learned Special Government pleader would submit that petitioner has been litigating before this Court and, therefore, petitioner must be aware of Court procedures. Association has filed several cases. Association cannot plead ignorance of the stage of the case. Pointing out to averments in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, he would submit, would show that petitioner cautiously did not intend to prosecute the writ petition and allowed it to be dismissed.

7. Sri V.R.N. Prashanth, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and Sri K.R. Prabhakar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 would submit that there is huge delay in filing this petition and sufficient cause is not shown. A bald affidavit is filed and that no case is made out to condone such huge delay.

8. Condoning the delay in filing a petition is the discretion of the Court. If sufficient cause is shown in not prosecuting the matter earlier the delay can be condoned. However, as the delay enlarges and the shadows widen, the scrutiny by the writ Court becomes more stringent and rigid. The Court considers pleadings minutely and only if sufficient cause is shown and that petitioner endeavours to point out that he was under bona fide impression of case as pending or the party was not aware of the order of Court, or that he was prevented from attending to Court on account of extraordinary event/s occurred thereafter. Court may accept the petition to condone the delay and to restore the case. thus, burden is on petitioner to satisfy this Court with cogent reasons and persuade the Court to condone the delay.

9. While exercising discretion to condone delay/entertaining a belated application, what is upper most in the mind of the writ Court is innocent/bona fide litigant should not