IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAkA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16TH DAt OF JUNE 1998 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE M.F. SALDANHA W.P. No 9650/1996 BETWEEN A Siddaramappa s/ol.Sri t. Govindappa adult, Clot. Siddaramappa brothers, Bangalore Road, BELLARY PEI1IONER (Sri B,L, Acharya for petrfl AND 1. The Deputy Commissioner Bellary Diet., Bellary 2. The State of Karnataka rep. by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Dr iimbedkar Veedhi Bangalore -SbO oOl, RESPONDENTS Smt.M R, Shanthakumari, HCGF tor espts Memorandum ot writ petition is tiled under Arts.226 & 227 of the Constitution praying that this Court be pleased to quash vide Annex,A dt, 22.3. 9ô by R--1 etc. Wr t petitior oming on to prly. hearing his d y, the Court made the tot oring: ORDER I have heard the petitioners learned advocate and the learned Govt Advocated Of the :.two points raised before me thit the first one is that the purchase was in an individual capacity and not in a representative capacity on behalf of the Firms From the material before me, it does appear that the petitioners learned advocate has made out an arguable case because him principal contention is that there is no material on record to justify the conclusion that the purchase was on behalf of the Firm when the sale deed itself shows that the petitioner transacted in his individual capacity As regards the question of income, learned advocate submitted that the error committed by the Deputy Commissioner is that having called for the figures from the Income Tax Department, that he has taken the aggregate income of the family and not of the petitioners Learned advocate has demonstrated to me that the aasessments have been split up aand filed under different heads and that the only material one was with regard to the petitioners individual returnS Unfortunately, none of this was pointed out to the authority as the petitioner was unrepresented when the case was hearth Normally I would not have granted the petitIoner any further opportunity nor wouldJ- have remanded the case but having scrutinised the record I do feel that if such a course is followed, gross injustice would result to the petitioners At the same time, the fact remains that due topetitioners default the case will have to be heard denovo and under these circumstances, though i have upheld the request of the petitioners learned advocate that he be given an opportunity to file his reply to the show cause notice and produce whatever records he wants in support thereof, the petitioner will at the same time have to ato for the lapse and the conseQuences for the waste of judicial time To my mind, this can be done by imposition of relatively heavy costs against the petitianer This is also necessary because in case after case I have found that parties and their representatives indiscriminately remain absent and years later the entire proceedinQ will have to be restarted The costs are quantified at Rs2OOO/— This again is only in response to the strong request that the petitioner’s learned advocate has conveyed as otherwise this is a case which would have qualified for much heavier costs 2. The impugned order is set aside The petitioner is directed to appear before the authority on 277l998 at Ii AM when the authority will fix the further date of hearings In the meanwhile, it is directed that the petitioner will have to deposit the casts awarded with the Advocates’ Welfare Fund , High Court and produce a receipt of the said deposit before the authority prior to the commencement of the hearing ci the cases The petition accordingly succeeds to this extent and stands disposed of with costs as quantified 6S / —