1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5177 OF 2009 (Abdul Shekh Ibrahim ...versus... The Appellate Authority under Slum Act and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MARCH 31, 2010. Heard Mr.V.S.Kukday, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Sangita Jachak, learned counsel for respondent nos.2&3 and Mr. A.G.Mujumdar, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1. The application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under the provisions of The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, filed by the present petitioner, came to be dismissed in default on 06/10/2009. The petitioner then approached that authority with a separate application for restoration of that matter, but that application was not entertained as according to the authority, it does not have such jurisdiction. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court. Mr. Kukday, the learned counsel for the petitioner, specifically invites attention to the statement made on affidavit in paragraph 16 of the Writ Petition to urge that after appeal was tendered to the respondent no.1 with an application for condonation of delay, the authority stated that the proceedings shall be registered and 2 thereafter the date of hearing shall be intimated. But, no such date of hearing was intimated at any time to the counsel for petitioner or to the petitioner. He contends that this story is not denied by the respondent no.1 at all. Mrs. Jachak, the learned counsel appearing for respondents no.2&3 support the impugned order and states that when inspite of several opportunities the petitioner failed to appear, appropriate order has been passed. Mr. Mujumdar, the learned AGP for respondent no.1 also supports the impugned order and invites attention to the reply affidavit as filed on behalf of respondent no.1, particularly paragraph 3. He further states that no application for restoration was filed by the petitioner before respondent no.1 at any point of time. The question is whether after the appeal was filed by the petitioner before respondent no.1 along with a prayer for condonation of delay, any date of hearing was given to the petitioner or then any date of hearing was communicated at any point of time through any notice. The assertions of the petitioner in this respect in paragraph 16 of the memo of the petition, are more specific. The respondent no.1 has not, in reply affidavit, denied those facts. On the contrary, reply affidavit only shows that after the appeal was presented on 05/6/2009 along with prayer for condonation of delay, the matter was registered and was fixed for argument on delay application, on 23/6/2009. The petitioner failed to remain present and argue the matter on same date. Thereafter, the petitioner 3 was given number of chances to remain present and argue the matter, but he failed to do so. Again it is not necessary to examine the correctness of this story, even if it is presumed that the date 23/6/2009 was communicated to the petitioner, on 23/6/2009 on account of absence of petitioner or his counsel, the proceedings were not dismissed and the authority thought it fit to give him further opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, that opportunity was given and the matter was adjourned. An intimation of such adjourned date ought to have been given to the petitioner or his counsel. The affidavit does not show that any such intimation was given to the petitioner. Thus, the matter has not been dismissed for absence of the petitioner on 23/6/2009, but for his subsequent absence when the subsequent dates are not communicated to the petitioner at all. In these circumstances, the impugned order of dismissal dated 06/10/2009 is unsustainable and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. In view of this position, it is not necessary to find out whether the petitioner had appeared before the said authority with a request to restore the matter. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. The order of dismissal dated 06/10/2009 at Annexure-16 is hereby quashed and set aside. The proceedings in appeal along with prayer for condonation of delay, are restored back to the file of respondent no.1. The petitioner and respondents no.2 and 3 shall appear before respondent 4 no.1 on 15th April, 2010 and shall abide by his further directions in the matter. The status-quo granted by this Court by order dated 30/11/2009, shall continue till the respondent no.1 passes further appropriate orders in this matter. Rule accordingly. Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE Diwale