HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR W.P.No. 33496 of 2010 Date: 18-01-2010 Between N. Chandrasekhar ……….. Petitioner and The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, A.P., Hyderabad and others. …….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR W.P.No. 33496 of 2010 ORDER: (Per NRS, J) This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 05-02-2010 passed in O.A.No.1957 of 2006 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘Tribunal’), allowing the same. The petitioner herein is the second respondent i.e. unofficial respondent before the Tribunal. The dispute in the O.A. was about inter se seniority between the applicant and 2nd respondent in O.A. It is not necessary to go into merits of the matter. It may be noted that the judgment of the Tribunal indicates that this O.A.No.1957 of 2006 was earlier dismissed for default on 17-10-2008. The applicant in the O.A. i.e., B. Narasimhulu, filed M.A.No.1114 of 2009 for restoring the O.A. It is seen that the Tribunal allowed M.A.No.1114 of 2009 and restored the O.A. without giving notice to the second respondent despite the fact that it relates to inter se seniority between applicant and 2nd respondent therein and also the first respondent and thereafter it proceeded to allow the said O.A. by its order, dated 05-02-2010. The contention of the petitioner’s counsel is that the petitioner was not given opportunity at all to oppose the restoration application or even the O.A. after its restoration and that itself is a ground for setting aside the judgment of the Tribunal. We have heard the learned Government Pleader also and we find that there is sufficient force in the above contention of the petitioner’s counsel as the Tribunal restored the O.A. and allowed it without notice to the respondents therein. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 05-02-2010 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal of M.A.No.1114 of 2009 in accordance with law by giving opportunity to the respondents therein and then take up the O.A. if it decides to restore it. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J __________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J Date:18-01-2010 YCR