TAXI MOTOR ASSOCIATION KANKROLI Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to the present application, briefly stated, are that the Taxi Motor Association, Kankroli, presented an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the decision of the appellate authority (Transport) dated 30-7-1952 on the ground, that the Chairman of the said appellate authority was not properly appointed and, therefore, the constitution of that tribunal was not valid in law. Besides the appellate Authority, the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority, two other persons, Bansilal and Hazarilal were also impleaded as opposite parties. Notices were issued to all of them and 6-3-1953 was fixed for the hearing of the application. On that day the learned Government Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the Appellate Authority, State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority conceded that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of the -- 'dholpur Co-operative Transport and Multipur-poses Union Ltd. v. THE Appellate Transport Authority, Rajasthan', AIR 1953 Raj 193 (A), he could not support the decision of the Appellate Transport Authority which was challenged, and therefore the petition was allowed and the decision of the Appellate Authority (Transport) dated 30-7-1952 was quashed and the present appellate Authority was directed to hear and decide the appeal according to law. Bansilal and Hazarilal who were opposite parties 4 and 5 as mentioned above failed to put in their appearance on the said date of hearing. On the 10-3-1953 they presented an application through their counsel for setting aside the said decision of this Court dated 6-3-1953.

(2.) IT is stated in the application that the case was third on the list on the date of hearing, that the opposite party's advocate Mr. C. L. Agrawal thought that the first case would take the whole day, that this case would not probably come up for hearing and so instead of remaining present in the Court, he went to the Bar room. IT is said that he was getting in the Bar room when the case was called out for hearing but he could not come to know that the case was taken up and, therefore, it was heard and decided ex parte. IT has been pointed out that the default in appearance on the part of the Advocate was unintentional and was due to sheer misunderstanding and, therefore, it is prayed that in the interest of justice, the ex parte order should be set aside and the case be decided after hearing the petitioners.