RAMACHANDRA APPAYYA KHOT Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned advocates representing the various contesting parties as also the learned government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 on merits. In this case, the tribunal dismissed the petitioners' application for default and a perusal of the order indicates that there was some justification for this insofar as the parties had repeatedly remained absent and even after the tribunal virtually gave them a last chance, that there was no improvement in the situation. The petitioners thereafter filed an application for setting aside the order of dismissal and restoration of the proceeding and the tribunal ultimately dismissed this application holding that it did not have any power to grant the application as the proceeding had been terminated. In other words, the tribunal took the view that it had become functus officio. The present petition has been directed against the two orders of the tribunal, the first being the order of dismissal and the second one being the order of refusal on the part of the tribunal to restore the proceeding. The petitioners'learned Advocate has relied on a decision of this court in puttaraju s. p. v state of Karnataka and others, wherein this court expressed the view that in cases of this type, the order of dismissal is improper insofar as it is the duty of the tribunal to decide the issues before them and if for any reason the parties remain absent that the consequential orders should still be passed.

(2.) THE respondents' learned Advocate as also the learned government Advocate pointed out that there can be no two views about the fact that the tribunal should decide the case on merits, but that there are a category of cases in which the parties consistently remain absent and the tribunal is helpless and left with no option except to dismiss the application. I do concede that the petitioners were undoubtedly at fault in the present proceeding but, the manner in which the tribunals were working at the relevant time and the many limitations in the way of poor, illiterate and semi-literate agriculturists to some extent alleviates the situation. To my mind, the party who has defaulted or who has remained absent should have been penalised by the tribunal even if it was a question of imposition of nominal costs as a penalty because such steps have salutary effects. To take the view that there was no provision of law under which the tribunal could have restored the proceeding was to my mind erroneous because there is no necessity for a special provision to be made investing the tribunal with the power to restore the proceeding that has been dismissed for default. It is a well-settled principle of law that where a forum is invested with the power to dismiss for default that it is implicit that the forum is also invested with the power, in appropriate cases, to set aside that Order, restore the proceeding and dispose it of on merits. It would be desirable that the tribunals take note of the observations of this court.

(3.) HAVING regard to the aforesaid situation, both the orders are set aside. The case along with the records is remanded to the tribunal with the direction that the tribunal shall ensure that all the necessary parties have notice of the proceeding and shall thereafter hear the case on merits and dispose it of on a priority basis. The parties shall maintain status quo in the meanwhile and if any interim orders are necessary liberty to move the tribunal for this purpose. The writ petitions succeed to this extent and stand disposed of. No order as to costs. It necessarily follows that by virtue of this Order, all consequential steps that have been taken by the authorities as a result of the tribunal's order that have been set aside will have to be quashed.