Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Majmudar and S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
P. Raghavender Rao and another - Appellants
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and others - Respondents
C.A. No. 5890 of 1997 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 12000 of 1993)
Decided On : 29-08-1997
Delay condoned - Leave granted - Tribunal's failure to allow Review Petition and hear all contesting parties - Setting aside of original ex parte order and restoration of Representation Petition for redetermination after hearing all parties
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was not heard when an ex-parte order was passed by the Tribunal in favor of the contesting respondent No.3. The Review Petition filed by the appellant was also rejected.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal should have allowed the Review Petition and heard the main matter on its merits after hearing all the contesting parties. The original ex parte order and the order dismissing the Review Petition are set aside, and the Representation Petition is restored to the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal with a direction to redecide it on merits after hearing the parties.
Issues: Failure of the Tribunal to hear the appellant and all contesting parties, rejection of the Review Petition, and the need for redetermination of the Representation Petition after hearing all parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of allowing the appellant to be heard and the necessity of hearing all contesting parties before making a decision. The Tribunal's failure to do so led to the setting aside of the original ex parte order and the order dismissing the Review Petition.
Final Decision: The original ex parte order and the order dismissing the Review Petition are set aside, and the Representation Petition is restored to the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal with a direction to redecide it on merits after hearing the parties.
JUDGMENT :
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. We have heard learned advocates for the appellant as well as for respondent No.3 who is the only contesting party. In our view, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the Review Petition filed by the appellant and should have heard the main matter on the merits after hearing all the contesting parties. Admittedly, the appellant was not heard when an ex-parte order was passed by the Tribunal in favour of contesting respondent no.3. When the appellant moved a Review Petition it was also rejected. As admittedly, the appellant was not heard when the original order was passed and more so, when counsel for the appellant was held up in the High Court and could not appear before the Tribunal, it was just and proper for the Tribunal to have redecided the main matter after hearing the appellant.
4. The order dismissing the Review Petition as well as the original ex parte order dated 29th June 1989 passed by the Tribunal in Representation Petition No. 3055 of 1987 are, therefore, set aside and the Representation Petition is restored to the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to redecide it on merits after hearing the parties. We, however, make it clear that we express no opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties. Ordered accordingly. No costs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
