AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned counsel for the petitioner after some arguments have stated at the bar that this matter has a chequered history and the genesis of the revision petition filed by the petitioner-complainant is in the order dated 16-06-2015 passed by the State Commission whereby RP/15/174 was dismissed for non-prosecution which fact was challenged orally by the opposite parties on 18-06-2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner in all fairness has submitted that in view of the chequered history and peculiar facts of the case in order to avoid any future complications or delay in the disposal of the matter the petitioner has no objection if the revision petition is disposed of with the direction of restoration of RP/15/174 filed by the opposite parties in the State Commission and the matter is remanded back with the direction that the aforesaid revision petition be disposed of at the earliest.
Looking into the chequered history of the case as also the concession given at the bar by the leaned counsel for the petitioner, we dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner-complainant with the observation that the order of the State Commission dated 16-06-2015 dismissing RP/15/174 filed by the opposite parties is set aside and the said revision petition is restored. The matter is remanded back to the State Commission with the direction to dispose of the said revision petition at the earliest but not later than six months. Counsel for the petitioner states that the matter is fixed before the State Commission sometime in November, 2016. The petitioner is directed to appear before the State Commission on the next date of hearing fixed there. The revision petition stands disposed of.
