MARTO DIAS Vs. SARPANCH/SECRETARY VILLAGE PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Godinho, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.1 and Mr. Thali, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

(2.) RULE. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties heard forthwith.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 20/4/2011 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Record clearly discloses that the petitioner filed writ petition no.788/2010 upon advise of his advocate Mr. J. Godinho on 1/12/2010 and it was only on 17/1/2011 when it was pointed that alternative remedy was available to the petitioner, the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition and the petition was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file revision application before the District Judge. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner was acting on the advise of his advocate which resulted in delay of 36 days in filing the revision application. Thus, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer because of the wrong advice given by his advocate. Hence, the petitioner has made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court is unsustainable in law.