9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioners deposit Rs.4 lacs by way of pre-deposit condition. Such order was passed on 7th January 1988. The petitioners also deposited such amount. Their appeals, therefore, were to be taken up for hearing on merits by the Tribunal. On 27.10.97, the Tribunal passed its first order which is under challenge. On 27.10.97, the Tribunal passed the following order: "None for the appellants despite notice. Appeal dismissed for non appearance under Rule 20 CEGAT (Procedure) Rules 1982." This order, the petitioners did not challenge for years together. The case of the petitioners is that no notice of hearing before the Tribunal was received by them. The order dated 27.10.97 was also not served. They were, therefore, not aware about the dismissal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ictated in court in the presence of counsel for the applicant. The Tribunal does not have power of review. There was no error apparent on the record. The application was, therefore, dismissed. In addition to such facts, learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the applications made by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act calling for the details about the service of notice of hearing before the Tribunal in the year 1997. In response to such application, the petitioners were told by the Registry of the Tribunal that the appeal papers were not traceable/available with their office. They were also asked to submit an affidavit that no other orders were passed by the Tribunal in the said appeal after the order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this stage, therefore to put heavy burden on the Registry of the Tribunal to establish that not only the notice of hearing was dispatched, the same was served would be too onerous a burden to be discharged. In addition to the situation noted above, we are also influenced by the dispatch register which shows the communication of notice of hearing and the recording of the Tribunal in its judicial order that though served no one appeared before the Tribunal. If within a reasonable time, the petitioners had approached and prima facie established that the dispatch of notice does not necessarily mean receipt thereof by the petitioner and even the contents of the Tribunal's order are erroneous, we would have certainly looked into the matter. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
