Mr. Ganshyam Crisna Keni vs Revision Authority ( Central Government ) Government of India, Ministry of Mines, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi and The Government of Goa, Office of Secretary ( Mines ), Secretariat, Porvorim, Bardez Goa

F.M. Reis, J.—Heard Shri V. B. Nadkarni, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Asst. Solicitor General for the respondent No. 1 and Shri A. Kakodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No. 2 Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned counsels. The learned Counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service.

The above petitions challenge the order dated 27.06.2011 passed by the respondent No. 1 whereby the revision applications preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 21.12.2009 came to be dismissed as not pursued by the petitioner.

Shri V. B. Nadkarni, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out para 23 of the petition and submitted that no notice of hearing was received by the petitioner informing about the date of the hearing by respondent No. 1. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that as no such notice was served on the petitioner, he failed to remain present on the relevant date which resulted in the dismissal of the revision applications for default. The learned Senior Counsel has further pointed out that the petitioner has a good case on merits and in case the impugned order is not set aside, grave and irreparable loss shall occasion to the petitioner with regard to the suit mine. The learned Senior Counsel, as such, submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

On the other hand, Shri A. Kakodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that he is not in a position to dispute the fact as to whether the petitioner had received the notice of the hearing of the revision applications before the respondent No. 1. The learned counsel further pointed out that on the relevant date besides the revision applications filed by the petitioner, the other petitions filed by other parties came up for hearing before the respondent No. 1 and, as such, the respondents were present before the said authority. The learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that necessary orders be passed accordingly.

Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits to the order of this Court. The learned Asst. Solicitor General is not in a position to confirm as to whether a specific notice was given to the petitioner fixing the date of the hearing.

I have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsels and I have also perused the records. The impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 is solely on the ground that the petitioner was not present before the authority when the matter was posted for hearing. Shri Kakodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2 does not dispute that the matter was dismissed only on the ground that the petitioner was not interested to pursue the revision applications and it was the first date when the matters were posted for hearing. The petitioner has stated on affidavit that he has not received the notice of the hearing before the respondent No. 1.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that there was no deliberate negligence on the part of the petitioner in appearing before the respondent No. 1 when the revision applications filed by the petitioner was called out for hearing for the first time, I find in the interest of justice that another opportunity be given to the petitioner to pursue the revision applications filed before the respondent No. 1. As such, I find it appropriate in the interest of justice that the impugned order dated 27.06.2011 passed by the respondent No. 1 be quashed and set aside and the respondent No. 1 be directed to hear the revisions preferred by the petitioner a fresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law. The date of the hearing of the revision petitions shall be duly notified to the petitioner by registered post A/D. In view of the above, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The impugned order dated 27.06.2011 passed by the respondent No. 1 is quashed and set aside.

(ii) The respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the revisions preferred by the petitioner a fresh after hearing the parties and notifying the parties in accordance with law.

(iii) Rule is made absolute in above terms.

(iv) The petitions stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.