Mathias vs The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai, The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thuckallay, Kanyakumari District and The Vayakkaloor Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd.

V.Kanagaraj , J.—Petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records

relating to the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent dated 03.04.2002 confirmed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.9278/2000 Sa.Ba.

dated 31.10.2000 and the first respondent in letter No.19564/CN2/2001 dated 13.07.2001 quash the same and consequently direct the

respondents to grant all attendant, service and other benefits to the petitioner from the date of his dismissal from service till the date of

reinstatement into service.

Today, when the above matter was taken up for consideration with no representation made on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner

but on his behalf only an adjournment would be sought for by a junior counsel and therefore, this Court is left with no option but to take a decision

regarding the above writ petition hearing the learned Additional Government Pleader (Co-operatives) who takes notice on behalf of the

respondents and having regard to the materials placed on record.

It comes to be known that the revision petition on the part of the petitioner had not been taken up for enquiry for being considered on facts and

circumstances pertaining to the subject and on a delay of 136 days refusing to condone the same, the revision petition had been disposed of.

A glance made into the impugned order dated 13.7.2001 would reveal that the said order is a one sentence order and not a considered one by

the Government. It further comes tobe known from the said order that a request has been made on the part of the petitioner to condone the delay,

but the same is not feasible for compliance. Nothing else has been seen from the order and therefore, it could very well be concluded prima facie

the order is a non-speaking order.

In the above circumstances and in the light of the fact that the petitioner had already been removed from service by the Board and an appeal

preferred also having come tobe dismissed confirming the decision of the Board a further opportunity on revision before the Government is quite

desirable and on account of the delay of 136 days said to have been caused on the part of the petitioner to file the above revision petition before

the Government without the opportunity for being heard on revision in a vital subject wherein the petitioner''s life interest is at stake, it is undesirable

on the part of the Government who have passed a blunt order without consideration of any relevant factor concerned with the delay and the facts

and circumstances of the case in the revision petition filed on the part of the petitioner as per the impugned order dated 13.7.2001.

It should be remembered that a mere delay caused, however longer, shall not defeat the basic or legal rights of a person in being heard by the

revisional authority and rejection of the revision petition on account of delay is nothing short of denial of an opportunity and therefore, as it has

been time and again held by the Apex Court and many High Courts including that of this Court, the punishment for delay shall not be rejection of

the revision petition, but could only be the costs and definitely not denial of an opportunity for being heard.

In result, in consideration of the facts and the proposition of law on the subject it is hereby held:

(i)The delay of 136 days for the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is condoned and the petitioner is permitted to

file a fresh revision petition before the Government within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(ii)The Government on its part shall entertain the said revision petition and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law with an

opportunity for the petitioner to be heard within a period of four weeks thereafter.

(iii) The Writ petition is disposed of in the above manner.

(iv) However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

(iv) Consequently, W.P.M.P.NO.31319 & 31320 of 2002 are closed.