TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er is not liable to be sustained any more, for having virtually denied an effective opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the impugned orders - Ext.P3 in both the writ petitions, are set aside - The second respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioners - The proceedings as above shall be finalised at the earliest, at any rate within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment - It is made clear that the petitioners shall make appropriate arrangements to appear in the hearing to be fixed by the second respondent, either in person or through an authorised representative, without seeking for any adjo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of hearing scheduled on 7.1.2013. Because of some personal inconvenience of the authorised representative, adjournment was sought for as per Ext.P4 dated the same day i.e. 7.1.2013, pursuant to which the matter was adjourned to 10.1.2013, as discernible from the materials on record. It is the case of the petitioners that, the petitioners appeared through their authorised representative on 10.1.203, but the second respondent was absent on that day and the petitioners were let known that they would be intimated as to the next date of hearing. However, without any further notice, the proceedings came to be finalised vide Ext.P3 order dated 17.1.2013 passed by the second respondent, behind the back of the petitioners, which in turn is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly on the basis of written submissions, upon which the attendance was not necessary. It was all the more open for the petitioners to have appeared and presented the arguments through authorised representative, without having the necessity to file any written submissions. It was accordingly that the petitioners were present in the office of the second respondent on 10.1.2013. This being the position, there was no need, necessity or occasion for the petitioners to have submitted any written submissions either on 10.1.203 or on any other date before 17.1.203, so long as the petitioners desired the matter to be presented through the authorised representative. This Court finds that the proceeding finalised by the second respondent by passing Ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
