CR 4165/1997 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioner, who is a private limited Company registe red under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Margherita now in Tinsukia District and was respondent No.1 in Revenue Appeal No.190RA(Tin ) /1995 before the Assam Board of Revenue, by the present petition has challenge d the judgment and order dated 24th June, 1997 passed by the learned Member allo wing the appeal preferred by the respondent No.6 herein by setting aside the ord er dated 9th November, 1995 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tinsuk ia. I have heard Mrs. M. Hazarika, the learned Sr. Counsel f or the petitioner and Mrs. H.M. Phookan, the learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5. None appears for the respondent No.6 despite service of notice. Mrs. Hazarika, the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitione r drawing the attention of the Court to various orders passed by the learned Mem ber of the Assam Board of Revenue in the aforesaid appeal, which are annexed to the writ petition, has submitted that though on 15th November, 1996 the appeal w as heard at some length, the learned Member thought it fit to get the original r ecord from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for perusal and accordingly, th e record was called for fixing 17th December, 1996 and though the case was adjou rned from time to time because of non submission of the record by the Deputy Com missioner, the case was ultimately taken up on 23rd June, 1997 on the basis of a telegram dated 22nd April, 1997 from the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia without, however, fixing the said date. On 23rd June, 1997, according to the learned Sr . Counsel, the learned Member passed an order for delivery of the judgment on 24 th June, 1997 about which the petitioner had no knowledge. The learned Sr. Couns el submits that as the petitioner did not have any knowledge about the judgment passed on 24th June, 1997, they in fact filed an application for transfer of the proceeding, which was taken up for consideration on 1st July, 1997, on which da te, the said application has been disposed of as the judgment has already been d elivered on 24th June, 1997. Mrs. Hazarika submits that the judgment in fact ha s been delivered by the learned Member of the Board without hearing the petition er, after receipt of the record, if any, and after receipt of the telegram dated 22nd April, 1997, as reflected in the order dated 23rd June, 1997, thereby deny ing the petitioner to make their submission in support of their stand taken befo re the Assam Board of Revenue. The learned Sr. Counsel, therefore, submits that the judgment passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Assam Board of Revenue for fresh decision. The learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent N os.1 to 5 submits that the dispute is mainly between the petitioner and the resp ondent No.6 and, therefore, the State in fact has nothing to do with such disput e. As noticed above, the respondent No.6, who preferred the appeal before the B oard, has not contested the present proceeding despite service of notice. No af fidavit-in-opposition has been filed by any of the respondents. In the absence of any affidavit-in-opposition, the averm ents made in the writ petition have to be taken as correct, moreover, when the B oard of Revenue, despite calling for the records by special messenger on a numbe r of occasions has failed to transmit the records to the Registry of this Court. The petitioner in the present writ petition has specific ally averred that on 15th November, 1996 when parties were heard at some length, the learned Member, Assam Board of Revenue call for the records from the Deputy Commissioner, which according to the learned Member, were required to be peruse d for deciding the appeal. It appears that on 15th November, 1996, the case was, therefore, fixed on 17th December, 1996 for records. The case was, however, adj ourned till 8th January, 1997 since the required records have not been furnished to the Board. The appeal was thereafter, adjourned till 10th February, 1997, 2 0th March, 1997 and 30th April, 1997 due to non furnishing the records by the De puty Commissioner. On 30th April, 1997, i.e. the date fixed for furnishing the report, the learned Member, Assam Board of Revenue passed the following order:- 30.4.97 Records as called for vide order dt. 15.11.96 and 17.12.96 not y et received. Seen Telegram dt. 22.4.97 regarding missing of records, in their o ffice. Sd/- D.C. Pathak On 30th April, 1997 no next date, however, was fixed in the aforesaid appeal. The learned Member, without fixing any date, took up the appeal for consideration on 23rd June, 1997, on which date an order was passed t o the effect that the judgment will be delivered on 24th June, 1997 and accordin gly, the judgment was delivered on that date. It appears that the petitioner, though initially heard o n 15th November, 1996, was, however, not heard on any date after calling for the records. The learned Member, Assam Board of Revenue having fixed the case for records ought to have given the petitioner an opportunity of hearing by fixing a date for that purpose, which has apparently not been done, as discussed above. In view of the above, the judgment dated 24th June, 1997 passed by the learned Member, Assam Board of Revenue is set aside on the ground that the same was passed without giving the reasonable opportunity of hearing t o the petitioner. The Assam Board of Revenue shall decide the appeal afresh aft er issuing notice to all the parties and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to them. Since the appeal was preferred in the year 1995, the Board of Revenue shall make an endeavour to decide the said appeal within a period of 3 ( three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The writ petitioner shall appear either through his authorized representative or thr ough his learned counsel before the learned Chairman, Assam Board of Revenue on 8th October, 2010 and shall produce a certified copy of the order passed today. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, as indicated a bove. No cost.