Mr. Justice S.A. Shah, President—Gujarat Secondary Education Board, the original opposite party in original complaint No. 302/92 has filed this appeal challenging the order passed by the District Forum, Junagadh on 9.10.1992. It appears from the record produced by the appellant that the complaint was filed by one student Daksha Ishwarlal Dhoragiya and the summons was sent by Registered A.D. on 8.9.1992 directing the Board to appear and file written statement on 25.9.1992. However, neither the written statement was filed by one anybody appeared on the date fixed under the summons. Therefore considering the urgency of the matters the District Forum appears to have passed an order on the same day i.e. 25.9.92 directing the appellant-Board to produce the English answer book of the complainants students through responsible officer on 9.10.92. The order in terms states that this was the order made by the District Forum. It appears that on 9.10.92 the Superintendent of the Board appeared before the District Forum but had not produced any document or the answer book directed to be produced by the District Forum.

2. The District Forum passed an order for fine of Rs. 3,000/- against the Board and directed the Board to pay the amount within 5 days and the date for final hearing was fixed on 13.10.92 and further directed that on that date the English answer book be produced alongwith other documents and papers. The present appellant has therefore filed this appeal before us and has obtained interim stay against the implementation of the order passed by the District Forum dated 9.10.92.

3. Mr. A.J. Desai, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. M.C. Bhatt for the appellants. In pursuance to our notice, the respondent (orig. complainant) has appeared on 21.10.92. The learned Advocate of the Board has voluntarily produced the English answer book of the complainant for our examination to satisfy our conscience. The say of the learned Advocate of the appellant was that the Court might examine the answer book since according to the Board, the marks given were correctly shown on the answer book on the first page of the answer book and there is no mistake of calculation. The learned Advocate of the Board has also offered us to see the paper and to verify that this has been correctly assessed, though they had in terms stated that the assessment of the paper is not within the jurisdiction of any. Law Court or Commission. Mr. Bhatt having realized certain observations made by us requested us to adjourn the appeal and the appeal was adjourned to 9.11.92. On 9th also, again request was made to adjourn for two days so that Mr. Bhatt can persuade the authorities if anything can be done and, therefore, we kept the hearing on 12.11.92. However, the respondent with her parent had come at 11.30 a.m. but the appellant being absent. We waited till 2.30 p.m. i.e. the recess time and then passed order dismissing the appeal for default.

4. At about 3 p.m. Mr. Desai appeared before us with some officers of the Board orally praying that the matter be heard on merits and the order of ‘dismissed for default’ may be set aside. We could have done that at that time but the learned Advocate of the Respondent had left the Court and when the respondent-complainant came before the Commission to take copy of the order passed by us, we directed them remain present today so that proper order can be passed and in this way this appeal has come for hearing today since we have set aside the order of dismissal.

5. So far the impugned order is concerned, it has been now well established that before the order can be passed under Section 27, show-cause notice should be issued against the concerned officer who is alleged to have disobeyed the order of the District Forum. In the instant case, no show cause notice appears to have been issued either against the Board or against the concerned officer. The porvisions of Section 27 are quasi-criminal and, therefore, before any penalty can be im