M. Katju, A.C.J. and R. S. Tripathi, J.—Heard counsel for the parties.

2. An application has been filed to recall the order dated 16.4.2003, by which the petition was dismissed on the basis of judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 16503 of 2001 decided on 16.4.2003. In para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the restoration application, it is stated that the petitioners counsel and clerk could not mark the case on 16.4.2003 in the cause list. Hence the learned counsel for the petitioner could not appear and argue the petition. In para 6, it is stated that the petitioner’s case is different from the case in Writ Petition No. 16503 of 2001.

3. Since learned counsel urged that he was not heard we have heard learned counsel for the applicants/ petitioners on merits today and we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this petition. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 28.7.2001 passed by Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). By the said order the representation dated 21.1.2001 was rejected.

4. The facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur published an advertisement on 8.3.2000 in the