IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.9649 OF 2010(KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI M.ANWAR HUSSAIN S/O LATE A.HAAJI GULAM MOHAMOOD, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, NO.5558, PARK ROAD, HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY Ms.D.SWATHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI G.A.SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN, SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN DISTRICT.
3. H.E.LAKSHME GOWDA FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, TREASURER, C/O D.C.C.BANK & OTHER MEMBERS, HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI A.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN APPEAL NO.730/09, DATED 25.1.2010, PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R2, IN PROCEEDINGS NO.16/05-06 DATED 15.7.2009, VIDE ANNEXURE-B BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by the impugned order, that even without notice to the other side, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
2. Sri K.N.Dayalu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that notwithstanding the merits of the petition, he should have been heard before the appellate Tribunal who passed the impugned order summarily rejecting the appeal on the first date itself which is wholly uncalled for.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that since there is no material even to issue notice to the petitioner, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the appeal. Hence, there is no necessity to hear the parties in the absence of any material.
4. On hearing learned counsels, I’am of the view that appropriate relief requires to be granted. Even though the appellate Tribunal is entitled to dismiss the appeal on the first date of hearing itself without notice to the other side, it is necessary to consider the fact that what is being considered by the appellate Tribunal is an appeal. It enjoys all the powers of an appellate forum including re-appreciation of evidence. Under these circumstances, it is only just and appropriate to have heard the parties before disposing the appeal at the stage of admission itself. There was no necessity to dismiss the appeal on the first date itself nor was there any urgency. Under these circumstances, it is just and appropriate to re- hear the matter afresh and thereafter pass a fresh order after hearing both the sides.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 25-1-2010 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal vide Annexure-A is set aside. The appeal No.730/2009 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is restored to file. The Tribunal to hear and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law by the end of December, 2017.
The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 20th March, 2017, without further notice.
All contentions are kept open.
Rsk/-
SD/- JUDGE