AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri Akhilesh Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.4.2009 passed by Principal Secretary, Department of Industries/Industrial Development Commissioner, U.P., annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.
Petitioner asserts that the revision which has been decided by the opposite parties is nonspeaking and unreasoned order. In fact, the order was passed in absence of the counsel, who could not make his submissions before the Presiding Officer.
A perusal of the order shows that the counsel did not appear before the Tribunal wilfully and the officer had no alternative except to decide it on merits. It is, however, claimed by the petitioner that relevant documents were not considered by the Tribunal resulting into loss and injury to the petitioner''s rights.
Learned Standing Counsel was given time yesterday to seek instructions but yesterday being a holiday and today also being a holiday in State Government, he could not get the instructions in time.
He further prays time for filing counter affidavit in this matter for which he requires at least two weeks'' time. Petitioner presses for interim stay in the meanwhile.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till the passing of the order dated 2.4.2009, interim order was operating in his favour to the effect that till the revision is finally decided, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner. He further submits that the same protection may be extended to the petitioner till disposal of the revision.
Under the circumstances, I feel it proper that the case may be remitted back to the State Government to be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
Learned Standing Counsel makes preliminary objection that the petitioner will not appear before the Tribunal and the said liberty will be misused. His appearance has to be taken care of.
Therefore, opposite party No.1 is directed to rehear the matter on merits and fix an early date according to his own schedule.
The order dated 2.4.2009 is set aside. The protection granted to the petitioner in earlier writ petition shall operate in his favour till the revision is decided.
It is also provided that in case the petitioner takes any adjournment, the protection granted by way of this order shall not be available to the petitioner. It will lapse automatically.
It is clarified that this Court has not made any observation on merits of the case.
With these observations the writ petition is finally disposed of.