BAGANEHEDDAL Vs. KARNATAKA APPELLATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . K.M. Shivayogiswamy, learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent No.2.

(2.) I do not find any merit in this writ petition and is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons:

(3.) MR . S.P. Bhat, leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that every order passed by the Tribunal is required to be communicated to the petitioner/appellant. He further submits no such exercise has been done by the Tribunal. The petitioner came to know about the order of dismissal only when the notice was issued on 4.1.2011 and immediately thereafter within six months the petition is filed. He submits that every order passed by the Tribunal whatever might be the nature is required to be communicated to the party. Hence, the delay was explained and sufficient cause was shown.