B.K. Sharma, J.

1. The applicant in the aforesaid two Misc. Applications is the writ petitioner. While by the said two MCs, the writ petitioner has prayed for restoration of the writ petition by recalling the order dated 8.6.2005, by which the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, in the writ petition the prayer made is to set aside and quash the judgment and order dated 22.6.2000 passed by the IM(D)T, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, in case NO. IMDT/H/165/98(D), by which the petitioner was declared to be not a citizen of India but an illegal migrant. The writ petition was filed on 31.10.2000 and by order dated 3.11.2000, the same was entertained with the direction to the petitioner to serve notice on the respondent No. 1 and 2 by registered post. However, it appears from the notes furnished by the Registry that the petitioner did not take steps for long more than five years. In this connection, the office notes dated 3.1.2003, 17.2.2004, 23.6.2004, 28.6.2004, 10.12.2004, 13.12.2004, 17.1.2005 and 21.3.2005 may be referred to, by which either it was indicated that steps for service of notice on respondents No. 1 and 2 was not taken or the petitioner was granted time to do so.

2. The writ petition was dismissed for default on 8.6.2005. After 7(seven) years thereafter, the petitioner has filed MC NO. 126/2012 and 127/2012. While in MC 126/2012, the prayer is to restore the writ petition upon setting aside the order dated 8.6.2005, in MC 127/2012 the prayer made is to condone the delay of 2374 days in preferring the MC 126/2012, seeking restoration of the writ petition.

3. The basis ground on which the delay condonation petition has been filed is that the petitioner was not aware of the order dated 8.6.2005, by which the writ petition was dismissed. Attributing negligence to the engaged counsel it has been stated that the said counsel did not intimate the petitioner about the said order and/or the outcome of the writ petition.

4. Noticing the aforesaid stand of the petitioner, this Court by order dated 25.7.2012 directed the learned counsel for the writ petitioner to obtain instruction as to whether any complaint with the North East Bar Council was lodged against the said engaged counsel who represented the petitioner in the writ petition. It was only thereafter a complaint was lodged on 3.9.2012 in the office of the Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, etc. In addition to the said complaint, as per the order of this Court, the engaged counsel was also made party respondent and notice was sent to him to respond to the allegation. However, there was no appearance on his behalf.

5. It is the common plea in most of such cases that the engaged counsel did not represent the suspected foreigner properly. It has been the experience of this Court that after the ex-parte orders are passed by the Foreigners Tribunals, coming to the writ Court, such declared foreigners blamed the engaged counsel. However, till date, not a single instance could be cited that any one of such engaged counsel has been prosecuted by the Bar Council and/or penalized.

6. Mr. M.J. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there was no default on the part of the petitioner, the writ petition is required to be restored to file. During the course of hearing of the two MCs, he also advanced arguments on the merit of the writ petition.

7. Opposing the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, both Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned State Counsel as well as Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned CGC, submitted that the grounds on which the delay condonation petition has been filed is unbelievable. They also submitted that there being delay of about more than 7 years, such delay should not be condoned. According to them, after filing of the writ petition way back in 2000, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to keep track of his writ petition, which admittedly he did not. It was only after the police searched for the petitioner, he filed the