1. Learned proxy counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment, submitting that the learned counsel is busy in some other court. The petition is pending since 2016. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner was directed to place on record all the order sheets of the State Commission. The Order dated 21.03.2018 may be quoted hereinbelow:- Dated : 21 March 2018 ORDER | The counsel for the Petitioner has filed proof of depositing of cost of Rs.15,000/- imposed upon the Petitioner vide order dated 08.12.2017, which is taken on record. Heard. De-hors the outcome of the present Revision Petition, issue notice to the Respondent, returnable on 20.07.2018. Meanwhile, the Petitioner may place on record all the order sheets of the State Commission from the date on which the Appeal was filed till the date on which the Appeal was dismissed in default with advance copy to the Respondent. |
| | | | | |
2. The Order dated 20.07.2018 shows that the direction given on 21.03.2018 was not complied. The Order dated 20.07.2018 may be quoted hereinbelow:- Dated : 20 July 2018 ORDER | Vide order dated 21.03.2018, counsel for the petitioner had been directed to place on record all the order-sheets of the State Commission from the date on which the appeal was filed till the date on which the appeal was dismissed in default with advance copy to the respondent. This has not yet been one. Proxy counsel for the petitioner undertakes to do the needful within six weeks. List on 12.02.2019. |
| | | | | |
3. It further transpires that when the matter was taken up by this Commission on 01.07.2019 further time was sought to comply with the directions given vide Order dated 21.03.2018 which was again granted. Order dated 01.07.2019 reads as follows:- Dated : 01 July 2019 ORDER | This revision petition was admitted on 21.03.2018 and notice to the respondent was issued. As per report of the Registry, the same was delivered on 21.4.2018. Since then, on 20.07.2018 and on 12.2.2019 no one had appeared on behalf of the respondent. It is also seen that the petitioner has yet to file copies of the ordersheet which had been directed vide order 21.3.2018. Counsel for the petitioner seeks two more weeks to file the same, obtaining the copies of the orders from the internet. He may do so within four weeks. List on 4.12.2019. A copy of this order may be served upon the respondent as well as its counsel making it clear that if there is no representation on the next date fixed, they would be proceeded ex-parte. |
| | | | | |
4. Again on 04.12.2019 it was noted that the Order dated 21.03.2018 has not been complied with. Order dated 04.12.2019 may again be quoted which reads as follows:- Dated : 04 December 2019 ORDER | Counsel for the respondent appears and undertakes to file his vakalatnama within a week. He further submits that he has not received a copy of the paper book. As per record, notice was served on the respondent. As such, it is not understood at all as to why the respondent when appointing the counsel did not also hand over the paper book. Counsel for the respondent to collect the paper book from the respondent and in case, the respondent does not have the copy, submit an explanation by the respondent as to why the paper book could not be handed over. Counsel for the petitioner has also, in addition to filing this petition with a delay of 179 days, yet to comply with the order dated 21.3.2018, vide which this revision petition had been admitted and notice issued, with the direction that the petitioner may place on record all the order sheets of the State Commission from the date on which the appeal was filed till the date on which the appeal was dismissed in default with advance copy to the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner seeks three weeks to comply with this direction. Four weeks is granted for compliance with this order. List on 23.4.2020. |
| | | | | |
5. Today when the matter has been taken up, adjournment has again been sought by proxy counsel. The request is politely declined. It is a clear case of non-prosecution. Petition stands dismissed as such. 6. However, in the interest of justice it may be observed that if the petitioner is interested in pursuing the matter in right earnest with due diligence and feels aggrieved by this Order he may move appropriate application for recall of Order and restoration of petition in accordance with law along with filing necessary documents which were directed by the Bench to be brought on record. 7. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately. |
