(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10260 OF 2010 Dinkar s/o. Tukaram Tandale, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Vanjarwadi, Taluka & District : Beed. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Beed, Taluka and District : Beed. 3. The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Beed, Taluka and District : Beed. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. H.A. Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 29TH OCTOBER 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1st February 2008, passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, in Original Application No. 215/2007, thereby dismissing the application filed by the present petitioner. 3. Mr. H.A. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner, on two grounds; firstly, non-appearance of the Counsel for the applicant (present petitioner) and, secondly, that the conviction was not stayed. 4. In so far as non-appearance of the Counsel is concerned, we find that though the applicant (present petitioner) had engaged a Counsel, he did not appear. A party should not suffer on account of lapses on the part of a Counsel. In so far as (3) second ground is concerned, the petitioner has placed on record, copy of the order passed by this Court, dated 6th December 2006, wherein conviction has been stayed. As such, the second ground, on which the Original Application came to be dismissed, is also on an incorrect factual position. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the petition. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1st February 2008, passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, in Original Application No. 215/2007, is quashed and set aside. The Original Application No. 215/2007 is restored to file and the learned Tribunal is requested to decide the same on its own merits. 6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( A.A. SAYED ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10260