Surajdeo Singh vs The State of Bihar and Others

Binod Kumar Roy, J.—The Petitioner prays to quash the orders as contained in Annexures 1 and 3 passed by the, different revenue authorities.

Annexure-3. contains the order dated 18-2-1986 dismissing the Petitioner''s revision Case No. 562 of 1985 for default observing as follows:

This case has been received on transfer vide Member''s order dated 21-1-1986. Petitioner is absent. O.P. has filed Vakalatnama. Petitioner has neither appeared on call nor submitted any petition. Petition is, therefore, dismissed for default.

Sd/- A.K. Sarkar Addl. Member Board of Revenue, Bihar.

It appears that a restoration petition was filed on the very next day i.e. on 19-2-1986 (as contained in Annexure-5) for restoration of the case on the ground that the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was busy in arguments in this Court and accordingly he sent the pairvikar of the case to file time petition but the police authorities did not grant gate pass to him and therefore, could hot reach the court of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, in time. It appears from the order dated 1.3-3-1986 that the said restoration petition was directed to be put up on 16-4-1986 by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar directing to inform both parties. By order dated 15-4-1986 (as contained in Annexure-3 itself) it appears that the said restoration application was also dismissed observing as follows:

O.P. represented.

Petitioner is absent

He has not filed any petition either. He remains absent on repeated calls also. Petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Sd/- A.K. Sarkar 15-4-86 Addl. Member Board of Revenue, Bihar

It appears that on 17-4-1986 the Petitioner filed an application for restoration but no order was passed and, therefore, he filed yet another restoration application on 3-6-1986 (as contained in Annexure-4) stating, inter alia, to the effect that since no notice was given to his learned Counsel regarding the date of hearing and hence the default. It is asserted that on the petition as contained in Annexure-4 also no order has been passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue.

Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted as follows: Since the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was busy in making submissions before this Court, the pairvikar was sent for filing a petition on 18-2-1986 but since the police authorities did not allow him to enter the premises, he could not file the desired petition and hence default. Since no notice was given on 15-4-1086, no one could appear. Accordingly, it would be in the interest of justice that the orders dated 18-2-1986 and 15-4-1986 be quashed and Board''s Revision Case No. 562 of 1985 be allowed to be heard on merits and disposed of accordingly. He further submits that the facts stated in the writ application has, not been denied by the Respondents by filing any counter affidavit.

Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5, in reply submitted that no valid grounds have been made for restoration of the case which was dismissed twice for default. 7. No counter affidavit has been filed by Respondent No. 5 or for the matter of that the Additional Member, Board of Revenue who is Respondent No. 2 denying the correctness of the facts stated in the writ application and in the aforementioned view of the matter, I am of the view that in view of the peculiar fact and circumstances and un-rebutted facts, as opportunity be given to the Petitioner to press his revision case No. 562 of 1985. There appears to be, however, some laches on his part.

Accordingly, I quash the orders dated 18-2-1986 as well as 15-4-1986 (as contained in Annexure-3) and remit back Board''s case No. 562 of 1985 for its fresh disposal by Respondent No. 2, the Additional Member, Board of Revenue provided the Petitioner pays a cost of Rs. 250/- to the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5 or in the event of his refusal to deposit in this Court to the credit of Respondent No. 5 within three weeks from today, failing which the writ application shall stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench clarifying further that it will be open for learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5 to withdraw the amount irrespective of the result of the Board''s revision case. This writ application is disposed of accordingly.

Let a writ of Certiorari issue accordingly.