The central legal point established in the judgment is that the authority has the incidental power to restore an application dismissed for non-prosecution under the Mahe Land Reforms Act, 1968, to achieve the object of the Act.

1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the order of the respondent dated 10.8.1989 passed in Ref: No: 14352/82/C-1 and quash the same.

2. This Court issued rule nisi on 26.4.1993. The matter was taken up with the consent of counsel for either side. The respondent had filed a counter affidavit also. Though the petitioner had mistakenly impleaded her Excellency, the Lieutenant Governor of Union Territory of Pondicherry, this Court taking into consideration of the passage of time of nine years since the date of filing the writ petition, deems it fit to dispose of the writ petition on merits irrespective of the defect in the description of respondent in the cause title. So also the failure to imp lead the contesting parties. It is not necessary to order notice to contesting parties at this point of time in the nature of order this court proposes to pass.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition could be summarised briefly. The petitioner submitted an application under section 83 (3) of the Mahe Land Reforms Act, 1968 seeking for acquisition of land to shift the Kudikidappu from her land in R.S.41 of Palloor Village of Mahe Commune to an alternative site acquired by the Government. An enquiry was conducted by the Authorised Officer in terms of Rule 60 of the Mahe Land Reforms Tenancy Rules, 1981. The writ petitioner failed to appear for the said enquiry and establish his plea that the land occupied by the Kudikidappukaran is absolutely necessary to construct a residential house. Thereafter on 19.11.1985 a notice was issued by the Government calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the application should not be dismissed for non prosecution. To the said show cause notice also the petitioner had kept silent and consequently by order dated 22.2.1988, the application filed under section 83 (3) of the Act was dismissed.

4. Thereafter the writ petitioner took out an application to restore the application dismissed for non prosecution the same had been rejected by the respondent on the view that there is no provision to restore the application which has been dismissed for non-prosecution by proceedings dated 10.8.1989. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. According to the petitioner, the refusal to entertain a restoration application and rejection of the same is illegal as sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for failure to appear. The petitioner further contended that section 83 as well as other provisions of The Mahe Land Reforms Act confers all the incidental powers including the power to restore an application dismissed for non prosecution and such a power has to be read in the very provisions of the Act. The impugned order, it is contended is violative of Art. 14 and Art. 19 of the Constitution. It is further contended that without affording an opportunity, the application for restoration has been dismissed and this is in violation of principles of natural justice. If an opportunity had been afforded, the petitioner would have pointed out the provision under which an application for restoration is maintainable.

6. On behalf of the respondent, the joint Secretary of Revenue Department had filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit the respondent had detailed the proceedings before the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Mahe and the failure on the part of the petitioner to appear before the said Authority to substantiate her case. According to the respondent the petitioner had failed to appear despite affording sufficient opportunity and consequently the Authorised Officer had passed an order on 19.4.1993 holding that the application could not be considered as the petitioner had failed to establish her bona fide need as claimed by her in the application. The petitioner applied to the respondent for acquisition and shift the kudikidappukaran from her land. A notice was issued on 19.11.1985 to show cause as