CHIRANJIT LAL Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. Rakesh Bahadur, Advocate, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondent No. 3.

(2.) SINCE the learned counsel for the parties requested that the matter may be disposed of finally, I have heard them and the matter is being disposed of at this stage, finally.

(3.) MR. R. P. Tiwari, Advocate Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 31-5- 1995 was passed by the Prescribed Authority behind his back and the notice was neither tendered to him nor he has ever refused to receive the same. He further submitted that the procedure prescribed under the rules framed under the Act for the service of notice was not fol lowed ; but a new procedure was adopted by the Prescribed Authority to serve the notices issued by it. He submitted that the Advocate Commissioner submitted an ab solutely false report. The Prescribed Authority has acted illegally and arbitrarily in relying upon the same and in passing the ex pane order which was liable to be set aside.