Heard Mr. B.Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant and Mr. S. Sarma learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no 1 and Mr. N. Goswami, appearing on behalf of respondent nos 3 and 4.
Vide order dated 13-12-2011 passed in the connected appeal No. FA.33/2006, the appellant was directed to serve notice upon the respondent no.2 either by Registered post with A/D or by dasti service and ensure that notice was duly served. No steps was taken by the appellant/petitioner towards the compliance of the direction given on 13-12-2011 and thereafter, the appellant did not appear on the next date i.e 2-2-2012 without any explanation.
An application dated 03-04-2012 which is Registered as M.A.37/12 has been filed by the petitioner/appellant with a prayer to allow him to serve notice upon the respondent no 2 at its new address at Guwahati. Admittedly, the appellant is an Agent of respondent no.2, therefore he is expected to know any change taken place in the address of respondent no.2. However, in order to complete service of notice though belatedly, the petitioner/appellant is allowed to serve notice upon respondent no. 2 at the address give para 4 of the Misc case No 37/2012 by dasti service and once the dasti service is completed , an affidavit shall be filed by the counsel of the appellant by way of proof of service.
Due to failure to take timely step for service of notice upon the respondent no.2 and non compliance of the direction given on 13-12-2011 , service of notice upon the respondent no.2 has been unnecessarily delayed. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate that the prayer for dasti service upon the respondent no.2 is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.3000/- to the respondent no.1 . Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 has volunteered to donate a sum of Rs.500/- out of the cost of Rs.3000/- to the welfare of the groups of advocates practicing before this Commission.
The Misc case stands disposed.
List the matter on 1-6-2012
