AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ
1) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2) This appeal is preferred against the order dated 18.02.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.18630 of 2020, by respondent No.9 in the writ petition.
3) A perusal of the order under challenge goes to show that respondent Nos.9 to 12 had not chosen to appear before the court despite receipt of notice.
4) On a question being posed by the Court, Mr.Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that it is a fact that the appellant/respondent No.9 received notice, but could not appear due to certain reasons.
5) When despite receipt of notice, the respondent No.9 did not choose to appear, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.
6) It is submitted by Mr.Maheswara Rao Kuncheam that the appellant will file application for review of the order passed by the learned single Judge explaining the grounds which prevented it from appearing before the learned single Judge.
7) In view of the above submission, while not entertaining this appeal, we observe that the appellant may file such application, as submitted by Mr.Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, and in the event of filing of such application, the same shall be considered on its own merits.
8) Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.