HIGH COLTRT OF JLJDICATLIRE AT BILASPLTR tf.P. No.24/^br 2001 Petitioner Madan Mohan Rajwade S/o Shiv Prasad Rajwade aged about 66 Year, Assistant Food Inspsctor (Retd.) Durpa Fioad, Korba (Chhattisgarh) 'lle State o-f H. ?_.. Th. i't'g^'Secretary Department of Civil Suppli'es Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal. 2. Director Food and Civii Supplles Bhopal (M.P.) 3. Hon'ble H.P. State Administrative . Tribunal Jabalpur (M.P.),. * \^f tfrit Petition under article 226/227 - o£ the constitution 01 India for issuance o£ appropriate Writ, 8'rits, order director atc. 1. Particulars of the petltionsrs As mentioried in the cause title. 2, Partj.cula.rs of the respondents. As mentioned in the cause tltle. ^••y ^^' .^'.>-"" .<^^ ^' ...•^^^•': ^•^y" ^<^--' ifi' /^f^ s(T??'?,^^Particulars of the order against shich this petition ,',' •'«• \ ^ made XI-HC—78 •*ii^id'4, ®Til<-i'i<o,fsidi^y ^i..P.PO. ^ol?)2-OQl sn^n^p (^qf^^q) •^I^I'RW 'sn^iwqNT Division Bench: HON'BLE SHRI FAKHRUDDIN, AgJ & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR d 24-01-2005. Shri Sanjay K. /^rawal, coun^ ShriS.C. Verma.Panel l-1eard. '%!<<E<ri^li Mw^i ^ ^S ^3iRCT3II^T C.J. - INHA.J. }elforthepeUtioner. Lawy^r for the State. 2. The peUtioner has flled the the Constitution of India against thej Madhya Pradesh State MA.No.776/2000. In^tant petitlon under Artlcles 226/227 of order dated 3-7-2001 passed by the Admijiistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, in Madhya Pradesh^ Jabalpur. The sa 3. Brief facts of the case are th^t the petfltoner who Is a Govemment servant had ffled a Misc. PettUon N{>.2611/1988 before the High Court of id petition was transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal after its e^tablishment in the State of Madhya Pradesh and the same was re-regis|ered as TA.No.1304/1988. The said case was listed before the Tribuny for hearing on 25-6-1998 and on account of non-appearance of thejcounsel the rase was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 2p-6-1998 (Annexure-P/1). In the said oKler it vras also mentionedthat $PG was issued to the petitioner on 24-6-1998. Thereafter on 16-11-2000 the petitioner came to knewafaout the dismissal of his petition and intmediately on 17-11-2000 he filed an application for restoration of T^.h|o.1304/1988 onthegroundUiat the counsel appointed by him was ejlevated to the Bench. In the said application it was also stated that thje petitroner has not received theSPC. ttll. r ^- I-HC—7i aTRRT'^f^Ri' 'rm an^i •gnrtq? •dxcl '^l'^Kn^, ®Tll'!-l;|to,fdd|^j^< OJ.P. (J«,2-01^|2-0'5 sir^i ~^v (l^if^<^r) _ 2—^ The Tribunai Dy its impugned or< restoration application holding thafl sufficient cause for his absence, 4. L^irned counsel for the shown the sufficient cause for his al not aware of the dismissal of the Hon'bte Apex Court rendered in t| Raaada & Others reported in of the case of the peUtioner to its ori^inal number. 5. In the aforesaid case G.P. Court has held as under: ^NwN iTriTaf •?fei^ ^fsi^Ti: '^aiRTtran^r er dated 3-7-2001 albu lujwled ll'ie the petffioner has failed to establish pelfUoner submits that the petitioner has tisence before the Tribunal and he was betition. He relied on the decision of he case of G.P. Srivastava vs. R.K. f2< 0) 3 SCG 54 and prays for restoration Brlvastava fSuora) the Hon'bte Apex ".......TheCouris have|a w»cfe drscreffon OT cfeckling the sumclent cause ke^plng tn \rtew ttie pecullar facts and ciivumstances ofe^ch case. The 'sufRcientcause' for fmn-appeararKe ref^rs to Ihe date on which ffw absence was made a ^mund for pmceecSng exparte and canrmt be str^fched to tely upon other cifcumstances anterior ?/» Sme. If 'sulfKiwit cause' is made out for non-appe^rance af the defendant on the ctate fixed for hearing v^ien exparte pmceecSngs were iniffated against him, H^ cannat fee penaSsed for his pievtous negligerKe wf^lch had been cwer tooked ancS ffieieby conctoned e^rtter. In case wheie ffiie defondant approewhes) the Court immediately and within the statutory Sri/e spectfed, ffise eliscietion is normally exefcised in h^s fawwr, pmvidedthe absence was nat malaSde or irfetttonal. Forthe absefxe of party in ie caae the dfher side can be compensated by adequate costs arxl jhe /fs deckiedon merits. (Emf^iasis Supplied)" B ,Q_ © 1-HC—7S ^ST "i)!<4lcl4, ,'c9xi1y4ld, MclK-iy .......u~:>..r.^.'..t'J.cl...z:Q.\?l.'l-^2 3?I*?I W ft-ti* '?Tsrf 3:n^T ^TTT^ TCTWT'afsn 3ni?i 6. Having considered the fact^ material on record, in this opinic|n 3-7-2001 passed by the h/ladhya M^.No.776/2000 is not sustein^ble 3-7-2001 is set asMe and the original number i.e. TA.No.1304/1988. and. circumstances of the case and of this Court, the impugned order Rradesh State Administrative Tribunal in Accordingly, the order dated e^se of the petitioner is restored to Subbtf 7. Office is directed to Administrative Tribunal. 8. With the aforesaid observaticjns the petition stands disposed of. 9; Consequently, I.A.No.9330/2p04 also stands disposed of. Parties are entiUed ftw certifi^d copy pfthis order Sd/- Acting Chief Justfce <^!<4lci<4lT1 ^WtHi ^f f$%t •ci'oif^K ^'atRnsii^r reduisite Uie records from the State Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge i^. !^1> Aii /V^ ?tTf- '^1\ jlii.Il