TELCO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMPANY LTD Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners states that respondent No.2 is a proforma party. Therefore, there is no need to issue notice to respondent No.2. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 12.05.2014 passed by State Commission Rajasthan whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein against the order of the District Forum, has preferred this revision.

(2.) MR . Gaurav Nair, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for it is a non -speaking order wherein the pleas taken by the appellants in the appeal have not been addressed to. Thus, it is urged that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the State Commission for hearing of appeal on merits. 3. Mr. Umesh Nagpal, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that it has been passed after taking into account overall facts and evidence as also the reasoned order passed by the District Forum. Thus, he has urged for dismissal of revision petition.

(3.) WE have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. In order to properly appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant portion of the impugned order, which reads thus: