AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.J. Shethna, J.—Learned Counsel Shri Rao, after arguing the matter for a considerable time, sought permission of this Court to withdraw this petition as he wants to approach the Tribunal by way of modification application pointing out to the Tribunal that though it was argued before the learned Tribunal that the copy of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was received by the petitioner on 3-12-2002 and the affidavit was also filed to that effect and that point was specifically argued before the Tribunal itself, the same was not considered by the Tribunal in its impugned order at Annexure ''G'' dated 12-12-2003. Learned Standing Counsel Shri Malkan has no objection. Permission granted. Dismissed as withdrawn.
At this stage, a request is made by Mr. Rao to direct the learned Tribunal to decide his modification application on merits by condoning the delay as, according to him, delay is caused in filing such modification application be- cause of the pendency of this petition before this Court for a considerable time. Instead of issuing such directions to the learned Tribunal, we are of the considering opinion that if the petitioner files modification application within three weeks from today with an application for condoning of delay taking all the contentions available, then we are sure that the learned Tribunal will consider the said application for condoning of delay and try to decide modification application on merits after condoning the delay in filing the modification application late, keeping in mind the pendency of this petition before this Court for a considerable time.
With these observations and directions, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn.