1. Heard Mr. Vakil, learned Advocate for petitioner and Mr. Alkesh Shah, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. For respondent No.3 no one is present.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon considering the order impugned in present petition, by order dated 20.06.2012, rule was issued and it was directed that the process be made returnable on 28th June 2012. Thereafter the petition is listed today in the cause list for final hearing.
3. As mentioned above, Mr. Alkesh Shah, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is present, however, for respondent No.3 no one is present and any appearance is not filed.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the affidavit of Direct Service has been filed.
5. Though learned A.G.P. is present and has received the papers, note of appearance has yet not been filed.
6. Any reply affidavit has also not been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2.
7. So far as respondent no.3 is concerned, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that postal receipt of having forwarded the process through Regd. Speed Post is received and on that basis affidavit of service has been filed. However, the acknowledgment of receipt evidencing service of process by the addressee is yet not received and therefore the affidavit to that effect is not filed.
8. According to the petitioner service of process is effected. However, as mentioned above, no one has appeared or entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.3. On behalf of respondent No.3 any reply affidavit is also not filed.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions made at the time of hearing on 20.06.2012 viz. that the impugned order dated 06.02.2012 is non-speaking and unreasoned order. He has also relied on the copies of other orders passed by the Revisional Authority whereby in similar facts and circumstances Revision Applications have been allowed by the authority.
10. It prima facie appears that the impugned order is non-speaking and unreasoned order and on that limited ground the petition with appropriate observation and direction can be disposed of without entering into the merits of the order and allegations against the petitioner.
11. However, in view of the fact that until now the respondents have not entered appearance and any reply affidavit is not filed, Court considers it appropriate to await appearance on behalf of respondent No.3.
12. At this stage, Mr. Vakil, learned Advocate for petitioner has submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 may, in the meantime, take steps to enforce the communication dated 5th May 2012.
13. Therefore, while deferring the hearing and further order until 9th July 2012. The communication dated 05.05.2012 and order dated 06.02.2012 shall remain stayed until 9th July 2012.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) jani Top