NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST NIT Vs. T D WANKHEDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Commission of Maharashtra in its Order of 19th July, 1991 in Appeal No. 7/91, N.I.T., Nagpur v. Shri T.D. Wankhede and Shastri Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. (Sanstha for short) had passed an exparte order upholding the ex-parte order of the District Forum, Nagpur and dismissed the appeal of the N.I.T. The Revision Petitioner here viz. Nagpur Improvement Trust and the Appellant before the State Commission, had remained absent before the State Commission necessitating the State Commission to proceed ex-parte. In fact, the Revision Petitioner-Nagpur Improvement Trust and the Opposite Party before the District Forum had also remained absent on the dates of the hearings of the District Forum. The Slate Commission observed "the Opposite Party remained absent on the dates of the hearings and therefore, the exparte order came to be passed. The Opposite Party did not put in its appearance at the time of hearing, did not file any document, nor tendered any affidavits except the application dated 1.11.1990 raising the preliminary objection and reply. Thus, we find that the allegations made by the Complainant in his complaint were not controverted on affidavit or by any other evidence by the Opposite Party. The District Forum Nagpur accepted the evidence of the complainant tendered in the form of affidavit and documents and passed the impugned orde".

(2.) The State Commission further observed; "In this appeal also, the Napery Improvement Trust did not appear on appointed date of hearing before this Commission. This Commission had sent a notice on 28.6.1991 by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due intimating the Napery Improvement Trust to attend the hearing of the appeal at 1.00 p.m. at Rave Haven, Napery on 15.7.1991. The notice has been duly received by the Napery Improvement Trust on 11.7.1991. On the date of hearing till 2.45 p.m., no appearance was made on behalf of appellant and therefore, this Commission closed the case for Order"

(3.) In its Revision Petition, the Revision Petitioner has not adequately explained as to why it remained absent both before the District Forum and the State Commission except to say that the various sections of the Improvement Trust were involved in preparing the reply to the complaint before the District Forum. The Revision Petitioner also did not pursue its appeal before the State Commission as is evident from the fact that it remained absent at the hearings. The explanation given is far from satisfactory. However, on going through the Revision Petition we find that the Orders of the State Commission as well as of the District Forum have been impugned on the ground of error of jurisdiction which deserved consideration.