AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri Sundaram, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Mishra, learned ASGI for respondents No. 1 & 2. Though R. & P. has been called for on 13-2-2014 and the matter has been listed at least twice thereafter, the office of Respondent No. 3 has still not forwarded the same.
The short grievance of Shri Sundaram, learned counsel is that the objections were removed on 12-4-2013, hence the matter could not have been dismissed on that date. He has also invited our attention to the statement on oath that the learned Vice-President, who has signed the order of dismissal, in default on 12-4-2013, was in fact on leave on that date. He contends that thus there is a material irregularity and, therefore, a substantial question also arises for adjudication. He insists for passing suitable orders as according to him, delay is causing prejudice to the appellant.
Shri Mishra, learned ASGI states that if the facts, as pointed out to this Court are true, the question may arise. However, according to him, there may also, be an inadvertent error.
We do not wish to go into the merits of the controversy. We only take note of the fact that on 12-4-2013 itself, all objections were removed by present appellant and hence on that date appeal could not have been dismissed in default.
Accordingly, the order dated 12-4-2013 is quashed and set aside and appeal filed by present appellant is restored to the file of Respondent No. 3 for its further consideration as per law. The appeal is thus partly allowed and disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The parties are directed to appear before Respondent No. 3 on 18-6-2014.