( 1 ) wp6197-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6197 OF 2010 M/s Relan Cloth Store, through its Partner V.M. Relan PETITIONER VERSUS Assistant P.F. Commissioner, Nasik RESPONDENT .... Mr. S.P. Shah, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.b. Chaudhari, advocate for the respondent. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 11th January, 2011] PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order rendered by the Assistant P.F. Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Nasik. The appeal was dismissed in default. The petitioner sought restoration of the appeal. The Presiding Officer of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (EPFAT) dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was filed at belated stage and there was no sufficient reason to restore the same. The said order is subject matter of challenge in the ( 2 ) wp6197-10 present petition. 3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent, it is manifestly clear that the appeal was scheduled for hearing on 9th July, 2009 at the camp at Mumbai, but it was adjourned. It appears that the next date was scheduled on 16th July, 2009 at Mumbai Camp. The petitioner failed to appear on the given date and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed in default. The learned Presiding Officer rejected the request for restoration of the appeal only on the ground that the restoration application was filed without placing any material to indicate that the petitioner failed to appear due to reasons beyond his control. The petitioner, it appears, sought restoration of the appeal on the ground that he received the notice about the scheduled date of 16th July, 2009 on 23rd July, 2009. Obviously, it was his contention that he received the notice about the fixed date after the date had already gone and, therefore, he was unable to attend the hearing of the appeal on 16th July, 2009. The impugned order does not show any consideration given to the said explanation. In fact, the impugned order is too cryptic and does not reflect due consideration of the reasons stated in the application for restoration of the appeal. It ( 3 ) wp6197-10 is of common knowledge that a party is not likely to gain anything by committing a default. Unless it is found that the act of the party is malafide and the party invited dismissal of the appeal in default for some selfish reasons, ordinarily, the restoration application is required to be allowed. Considering these aspects of the matter, it will have to be said that the impugned order is unjustified and arbitrary. 4. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Rule is made absolute accordingly. The petitioner is directed to appear before the appellate authority on 7th February, 2011 or any scheduled date which may be fixed by the Appellate Authority during visit to Mumbai Camp. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp6197-10 ( 4 ) wp6197-10