AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
THE impugned order runs as under: JUDGEMENT_117_LAWS(NCD)5_2015.htm
IT is surprising to note that on the one hand, the order states that nobody was present, the case was called twice but on the other hand, the presence noted above is marked, which is mentioned that Ms. T. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant was present. The presence and the order are contradictory. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nobody appeared before the State Commission because there was strike, which is accompanied by an affidavit. There are newspaper cuttings showing the photographs of the advocates, who were on strike. The newspaper cuttings are dated 3.2.2015, 4.2.2015 and 23.02.2015. Since nobody was present, therefore, we are of the view that there is no need to summon the respondents as well.
CONSEQUENTLY , we set aside the order passed by the State Commission, give liberty to the petitioner to appear before the State Commission on 15.7.2015. The State Commission is further directed to summon the OP before proceeding further in this case. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.