( 1 ) NOTICING the conflict of opinion between two single Bench judgments of this Court in Boregowda v. Special Deputy Commissioner, ILR 1990 Kant 489 and S. Billigowda v. Deputy Commissioner, ILR 1991 Kant 4369, regarding the ambit, scope and interpretation of Rule 5 (2) of the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Rules, 1985 (for short, 'the Rules' ). The learned single Judge has referred the following question of law for the consideration of the larger Bench :"whether under Rule 5 (2) of Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Rules, 1979, it has been open or not to the Appellate Authority, that is, the Deputy Commissioner to dismiss the appeal on merits or whether only course open and available was either to adjourn the appeal or to dismiss for default only?"

( 2 ) ). R-1 to R-3 have no interest in the lis as they are statutory authorities. R-4 to R-6, the private contesting respondents did not appear inspite of service. We requested the Government Advocate to assist us on their behalf.

( 3 ) RULE 5 of the Rules reads as under :"5. Manner of disposal of appeal by t