PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioner heard. This Revision Petition has been filed against the remand order dated 22.11.2013 rendered by the State Commission, Maharashtra. The impugned order clearly goes to show that the appellant-Railways did not file any written notes of arguments. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that the written arguments were filed. The matter was fixed for oral arguments on 03.03.2010. However, unfortunately, the Advocate for Railways expired on 26.02.2010. The matter came to be decided by judgment dated 19.06.2010, without hearing the oral arguments from the counsel for the respondent-Railways. Under these circumstances, the case was remanded back to the District Forum for re-hearing. 2. This is well known legal maxim, ‘No man should be condemned unheard’. Again, whatever disagreement there be as to the scope of the phrase “due process of law”, there can be no doubt, ‘due to it’ embraces the fundamental conception of a fair trial with opportunity to be heard. It is surprising to note that the parties were directed to appear on 10.12.2013 before District Forum. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that they had moved an application for adjournment. It, therefore, means that the petitioner is interested in delaying the case unnecessarily. On the one hand he prays for expeditious trial but on the other hand moves an application for adjournment. The counsel for the respondent/OP has to be heard. This case does not fall in the category that every case should not be remanded. This is an exceptional case where the Advocate had passed away. 2. We see no merit in the Revision Petition, therefore, the same is dismissed. 3. District Forum is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. | 
