AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS miscellaneous application has been filed on behalf of the original petitioner in RP No. 3466 of 2006 seeking restoration of the said revision petition which was dismissed for non-prosecution by this Commission on 01.08.2011. It was observed in that order that there was no appearance, on behalf of the petitioner even before the State Commission and also before the Registrar of this Commission on 16.03.2011.
IN this case, the vakalatanama was filed by the petitioner in favour of Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, Advocate. Mr. Tripathy appeared before this Commission on the first date, i.e., 29.11.2006. Thereafter, the following Advocates appeared on behalf of the petitioner on the successive dates: 1. Mr. Venkat Subramaniam T. R. - 11.12.2006. 2. Mr. J. K. Sahoo - 11.07.2007 3.Mr. S.S. Pushkarma - 05.09.2007 4. Mr. Subhasish Mohanty - 30.09.2010 5. Mr. M.P. Siddiqui - 02.12.2010 None of these Advocates, who appeared claiming to be on behalf of Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, was on record of this Commission for the petitioner because the vakalatama filed by the petitioner was only in the name of Mr. Tripathy. Even on the last date (21.10.2011) one Mr. Antarik Sarkar, Advocate, claiming to be ?proxy counsel? for Mr. Tripathy has appeared and seeks adjournment. Needless to add, he has neither been engaged by the petitioner through a vakalatnama nor does he have a letter of authority from Mr. Tripathy. This would only show that neither the petitioner nor Mr. Tripathy is serious about prosecuting this matter. In fact, over the years, undue advantage has been taken of the accommodation shown by this Commission in believing the words of various advocates who have claimed to represent the petitioner by appearing as ?proxy counsel? for Mr. Tripathy. This practice is unbecoming of a diligent petitioner.
The miscellaneous application for restoration is, therefore, dismissed for non-prosecution and, consequently, also the revision petition.