Tarun Chatterjee, J. — Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed against the order dated 28th of December, 2007 passed in Writ Petition (Misc.) Single No. 7361 of 2001 and the order dated 3rd of October, 2008 passed in CLMA No. 6551 of 2008 and MCC No. 1153 of 2008 respectively of the High Court of Uttarakhand, whereby the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition (Misc.) Single No. 7361 of 2001 for non prosecution and rejected the application for restoration of the writ petition on condonation of delay in filing the same.

3. The facts of the case are as follows:

The deceased mother of the appellants Smt. Devki Devi was dispossessed from her shop on account of deceptive acts of her Manager, namely, Pooranlal Shah who was engaged by her to run the business of confectionary (Halwai) after the death of her father. The said Manager got an ex parte order for declaring vacancy under Section 16 (1) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972) and thereafter an ex-parte order for allotment of shop in question in his favour. The said order was challenged by the appellants before the High Court of Allahabad and by its judgment and order dated 9th of January, 1980, the matter was remitted back to the First Additional District Judge, Nainital to decide it afresh. After remand, the First Additional District Judge, Nainital by his order dated 5th of March, 1982, again upheld the order of declaring vacancy and allotment in favour of the said Manager. On 25th of May, 1982, the appellants filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5997 (A)/1982 in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the aforesaid order dated 5th of March, 1982 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Nainital. The said writ petition was admitted by the High Court of Allahabad. Subsequently, on the creation of State of Uttarakhand, the said writ petition was transferred to the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital and was renumbered as W.P. (S) No. 7361 of 2001. An application for substitution of the deceased Smt. Devika Devi was filed which was allowed by an order dated 17th of December, 2007. The appellants were thus substituted in place of the deceased Smt. Devki Devi in the pending writ petition. By a separate order of the same date, another application filed by the appellants for the substitution of heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent Pooranlal Shah – Manager was also allowed by the High Court. However, by an order dated 28th of December, 2007, the High Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution. For restoration of the writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution, an application was filed by the appellants through their learned counsel Shri Bindesh Kumar Gupta. Since Sh. Gupta did not appear at the time the said application for restoration was listed for hearing i.e. on 26th of March, 2008, the said application for restoration was also rejected by a learned Judge of the High Court for non-prosecution. Sometime in the month of September, 2008, a second application for restoration of the writ petition was filed by the appellants saying that since Sh. Gupta was appointed as the Additional Advocate General or the State, he could not appear when the writ petition was taken up for hearing. The High Court by the order dated 3rd of October, 2008 dismissed the second application for restoration on the ground of delay and latches without passing a speaking and reasoned order. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the High Court rejecting the writ application for non-prosecution and subsequent offer rejecting the application for restoration, the appellants have filed two Special Learned Petitions, which on grant of leave, were heard in the presence of the learned counsel for the appellants only. At this stage, it may be mentioned that in spite of repeated services on the respondents, no one had chosen to appear before us at the time of hearing of these appeals.

4. We have heard the learned counse