SURESH SHARMA Vs. VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF TALEIGAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate General along with Ms. M. Correia, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent no.4. Mr. S.D. Padiyar, Advocate for the Respondent no.3.

(2.) Though, private service is effected on the respondent no.2, their representative is neither present nor is the Authority represented. However, the Order which we propose to make, the presence of the respondent no.2 is really not necessary.

(3.) Accordingly, we issue Rule and make the Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner challenges the Order dated 11.10.2019 made by the respondent no.4 on the ground that the petitioner received the notice of the adjourned hearing on 12th of October, 2019, when the hearing was in fact fixed on 11th of October, 2019.