GANGABEN, WD/O RANCHHODBHAI PRABHUBHAI, THROUGH HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BHIMSEN RAJARAM Vs. (THE) COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SURAT & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx

(2.) It does appear that an adjournment was sought by the learned Counsel who filed the appeal on behalf of the appellant. The appellate authority did not find the ground for adjournment to be reasonable. A telegram was sent to the appellate authority by the learned Advocate that he could not remain present because of the lawyers' strick and that the petitioner was sick. It was therefore a valid reason for the appellate authority to adjourn the matter in order to hear the appellant's advocate on the application for condonation of delay. There was, therefore, a denial of adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant when the appellate authority proceeded with the matter and rejected the application for condonation of delay without hearing the appellant and her advocate. The impugned decision is, therefore, set aside with a direction that the application for condonation of delay be heard on merits. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.