IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4920 OF 2009 Between: The Sarpanch .....PETITIONER AND Nalavala Rajagangu and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4920 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the order, dated 29.09.2009, in I.A.No.23 of 2009 in W.C.No.27 of 2006, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex parte order, dated 28.08.2009, in W.C.No.27 of 2006, on the file of the said Commissioner, was rejected as there were no merits in the case. 2. Petitioner herein is opposite party No.2 in the Workmen’s Compensation case. The petitioner herein, after receiving the notices from the concerned authority, approached the Government Pleader – Karimnagar and got the matter represented. Later, the petitioner was under the impression that the matter was being represented by the Government Pleader and surprisingly, he received the final order, dated 28.08.2009, in W.C.No.27 of 2006. After enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the then Government Pleader, who was representing the case, has been suspended and the successive Government Pleader did not receive the file from the earlier Government Pleader. Meanwhile, the petitioner was set ex parte on 06.01.2007 and the final order was passed on 28.08.2009. Aggrieved by the same, to give an opportunity to defend the case, the present petition was filed by the petitioner and the same was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner in view of the fact that the workmen did not work as an employee under the Gram Panchayat; that only after receipt of the order from the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, the petitioner came to know about the passing of the final order and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner received summons in the Workmen’s Compensation Case. Thereafter, he approached the Government Pleader, Karimnagar, and got the matter represented. As the written statement was not filed, the petitioner was set ex parte and the ex parte order was passed. As seen from the impugned order, the case underwent several adjournments for about more than three years. The petitioner has not raised his little finger to know about the stage of the case. It is not the case where the petitioner did not receive summons from the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. So, the conduct of the petitioner appears to be willful or wanton in not approaching the Government Pleader to file the written statement as well as to contest the case. The petitioner has not given any reasons for not contesting the case in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. Hence, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J August 06, 2010 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4920 OF 2009 August 06, 2010