S BILLIGOWDA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Sri Ananthamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner Who took me through the impugned order Annexures-A and B urged two points:

(2.) The learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision rendered by this Court in Boregowda v Special Deputy Commissioner, ILR 1990 Kar. 489, and submitted that if the appellant was absent when the case was called, the Deputy Commissioner may dismiss the appeal for default as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 5. In the instant case, the Deputy Commissioner instead of doing so, dismissed the appeal on merits. Hence, las order, Annexure-B was liable to be quashed.

(3.) Sri Shivappa, learned counsel for respondent 3 however, argued that sub-rule(4) of Rule 5 provided an opportunity to an aggrieved person to make an application for recalling the order dismissing for default. But, here the petitioner cannot have any grievance because such a course of action was not taken by him.