IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.25527 of 2014 BETWEEN Khaja Hasimuddin.
AND ... PETITIONER The Government of Telangana State, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K. RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (TG) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. The issue involved in this writ petition is in a very narrow compass. Hence, details on facts are not mentioned except to the extent necessary.
3. Petitioner filed a revision before the Joint Collector, second respondent herein. It appears, however, that the said revision, being No.F3/76/ROR/2008, was dismissed in default on 02.05.2013. Petitioner, thereafter, filed an application on 28.06.2013 for restoration of the said revision but the same was, however, not taken up. Hence, petitioner moved this Court in WP.No.19135 of 2014 and after noticing that the second respondent had already dismissed the restoration petition on 16.07.2014, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. The present writ petition is directed against the said order dated 16.07.2014 wherein the second respondent dismissed the restoration petition on the ground that the petitioner was called absent on 29.01.2009 and thereafter, on several occasions when the case was adjourned and ultimately, dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.
4. One of the contentions of the petitioner is that no date was fixed for hearing of the restoration petition and as such, petitioner was not aware of the order passed by the second respondent on 16.07.2014. It is also contended that all the dates, which are mentioned in the impugned endorsement, are with reference to the dates in the revision petition and not a single date mentioned relates to restoration petition.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, who was required to get instructions, particularly, whether the petitioner was notified of hearing and disposal of the restoration petition, submits, on instructions, that no date appears to have been fixed by giving notice to the petitioner.
6. In view of that, I am constrained to set aside the impugned endorsement of the second respondent dated 16.07.2014. Consequently, the restoration petition, filed by the petitioner, shall stand remitted to the second respondent for fresh disposal after notice and after hearing the petitioner, expeditiously. The second respondent is free to examine the request of the petitioner, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, as he deems fit and proper.
The writ petition is allowed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 24, 2014 DSK