VYSYA BANK LIMITED Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of parties, petition is heard finally at the motion stage itself.

(2.) THE only grievance of the writ petitioner appears to be in the writ is that an ex parte order, passed on November 12, 2002 (annexure P 11) by Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner in default and not restoring the same by again passing an adverse order against the petitioner, dated January 1, 2003 (annexure P 13) deserves to be quashed.

(3.) IT appears that consequent upon the remand made by this Court by order dated October 21, 2002, passed in W. P, No. 2398 of 2001, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner ought to have been heard on merits keeping in view the directions given by this court in the aforementioned writ. It appears that on the date fixed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, the petitioner and or his consultant could not appear as according to petitioner his consultant fell sick. On this ground the revision petition came to be dismissed in default thereby not giving any verdict on the merits of the controversy.