IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:2597 of 2000 Between: S.Ranga Reddy S/o Siva Reddy R/o Chigara Chervu Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 P. Laxmamma W/o Late P. Mallesh R/o Hayathnagar Village & Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. C/o Mr. Amarnatha Reddy (Advocate), 3-6-537, St.No.7, Opp: Minarva Hotel, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. 2 P. Yadagiri @ Yadaiah S/o Mallesh R/o Hayathnagar Village & Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. C/o Mr. Amarnatha Reddy (Advocate), 3-6-537, St.No.7, Opp: Minarva Hotel, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. 3 P. Narasimha S/o Late Mallesh R/o Hayathnagar Village & Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. C/o Mr. Amarnatha Reddy (Advocate), 3-6-537, St.No.7, Opp: Minarva Hotel, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. 4 P. Krishna S/o Late Mallesh R/o Hayathnagar Village & Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. C/o Mr. Amarnatha Reddy (Advocate), 3-6-537, St.No.7, Opp: Minarva Hotel, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. 5 P. Janga Rani @ Jayarani D/o Late P. Mallesh R/o Hayathnagar Village & Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. C/o Mr. Amarnatha Reddy (Advocate), 3-6-537, St.No.7, Opp: Minarva Hotel, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. 6 J. Gopal Reddy (Major) R/o Plot No.81, MIGH, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad-500 659. 7 The Court of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Ranga Reddy Dist. & Asst. Commissioner of Labour Ranga Reddy Circle-I, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. JASTHI SURESH BABU FOR MR.K.MAHIPATHI RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 5: MR. G.RAVI MOHAN The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of certiorari to quash order, dated 25.10.1999 in I.A. in W.C.No.19/94(F) on the file of respondent No.7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. One Mr. P.Mallesh was allegedly employed by the petitioner and respondent No.6 as a labourer in a poultry farm belonging to them. He lost his life on 02.04.1993, when the structures relating to the poultry farm shed were being dismantled due to collapse of wall. Respondent Nos.1 to 5, who were his wife and children, approached respondent No.7 - Court by way of a claim petition registered as W.C.No.19/94(F) for compensation. The case was pending for more than three (3) years. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the notice issued by respondent No.7 was communicated by his counsel Sri B.Amarnath Reddy, wherein the petitioner was required to appear before respondent No.7 on 12.08.1997. The petitioner did not appear and accordingly, his right to contest the case as forfeited by respondent No.7 by it’s order, dated 22.11.1997. As the petitioner continued to stay away from the proceedings, respondent No.7 went ahead with the enquiry, during the course of which, it examined two witnesses on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 and one witness on behalf of respondent No.6 apart from marking Exs.A.1 to A.9. After considering the entire case in detail, respondent No.7 by it’s order, dated 20.07.1998, allowed the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 5 for compensation against the petitioner to the extent of Rs.74,543/- and absolved respondent No.6 of his liability. The petitioner, who kept quiet for nearly eleven months, ﬁled an application to set aside order, dated 20.07.1998 and give him an opportunity to contest the case. The said application having been dismissed, the petitioner ﬁled the present writ petition. In it’s order, respondent No.7 considered the fact that the petitioner admitted that he received the notice ﬁxing 12.08.1997 as the date of hearing, albeit after the said date and the further fact that he ﬁled the application almost eleven months later to set aside order, dated 20.07.1998. It held that due to the petitioner’s approaching this Court and stalling the proceedings, the case could not be taken up for more than three (3) years and that the ﬁnal order was passed after forfeiting the rights of the petitioner to contest the case and, therefore, the same was not an ex parte order. It observed that the petitioner’s rights were forfeited on 22.11.1997 after giving him a number of opportunities. On the said premises, respondent No.7 dismissed the petitioner’s application. Having considered the reasons given by respondent No.7, I do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the order passed by it. Admittedly, the petitioner had knowledge of posting of the case to 12.08.1997. Even assuming that, as contended by him, the notice of hearing was received by the petitioner after expiry of the date of hearing, he failed to give any reason except the alleged ill-health to allow respondent No.7 to pass order, dated 22.11.1997, forfeiting his rights to contest the case and passing the final order on 20.07.1998. A perusal of the impugned order shows that between the date of notice received by the petitioner for hearing on 12.08.1997 and passing of the ﬁnal order, detailed enquiry was held, during which, oral evidence was let-in by respondent Nos.1 to 6 on their respective sides. In the absence of any material produced by the petitioner to show that he was so severely unwell that he could not participate in the proceedings which went on for nearly one year after he had notice of hearing of the case, it is not possible to accept his bald plea that due to his ill-health, he could not participate in the proceedings. The reasons given in support of the impugned order are sound and worthy of acceptance. Therefore, I do not ﬁnd any error in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th AUGUST, 2008. kvni