KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.--- This order will dispose of C.M.3027/1995 in Writ Petition No. 2514/89, C.M. 3030/95 in W.P. 2515/89 and C.M. 3033/95 in Writ Petition No. 2516/89 as common question is involved.
2. On 9.4.1995 the Constitutional petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution after recording the fact that the claim of the private respondent has been conceded by the ,Chief Officer of the applicant-Committee. The Court concluded that apparently this explains the absence of the representative of the applicant, or its learned counsel.
3. During the course of hearing I have been invited to read the application made by the Chief Officer before the respondent-Authority wherein the Chief Officer has conceded the claim made before the Authority. The matter having been decided on the consent, it was hardly open to the petitioner to turn around and throw challenge to the consent order.
4. In any case, the ground for non-appearance on 9.4.1995 does not seem to be sufficient. Even if the learned original counsel had by that time been elevated, the cases were being looked after by Associates of the learned counsel. It will be seen that nobody appeared in Court to confirm that the case cannot be proceeded because of the reasons now being stated before me.
5. The applications are further barred by time The cases having appeared in the cause list on 9.4.1995 and knowledge of this date of hearing not being denied, the limitation of thirty days for restoration will run from 9.4.1995. The applications filed on 12.7.1995 are clearly barred by time. No ground for condonation of delay exists.
6. For the above reasons, all these applications are dismissed.