R.R. Yadav, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Madhusudan Dikshit, Sri Akhilesh Verma, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1. Perused the order impugned (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), whereby the Board of Revenue has rejected restoration of restoration application by a cryptic order.
(2.) It is conceded at the Bar that the order impugned (Annexure-1) is amenable to writ jurisdiction and once it is conceded that the order impugned in amenable to writ jurisdiction, the petitioner is entitled to demonstrate before this Court that his restoration and restoration of restoration application have been rejected on erroneous and non-existent ground (See AIR 1971 SC 862).
(3.) It is settled principle of law that restoration of restoration application is maintainable. It is is to be imbibed that a restoration application or restoration of restoration application is to be disposed of on merits after investigating the cause shown by the applicant which prevented him to present himself when the case was called on for hearing. In the present case, the Board of Revenue has not disclosed what was the cause shown by the applicant for his absence on the date of hearing and it fails to give reasons as to why it was not persuaded to believe the cause of absence shown by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, no restoration application can be rejected without investigating the sufficiency of cause shown by the applicant. It is apparent from perusal of the order impugned that the Board of Revenue has rejected restoration of restoration application of the petitioner on his own assumption and presumption that the petitioner is not interested to continue the present proceedings. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid presumption of Board of Revenue is based on non-existent ground. It is not understandable as to why the petitioner will not be interested to get his case decided on merits. It is further not understandable for what benefit the petitioner got his case dismissed in default. I am of the opinion that the afore-mentioned reasons given by Board of Revenue in rejecting restoration of restoration application of the petitioner are based on surmises and conjectures, therefore, these reasons are not acceptable. As a result of the aforesaid discussion the petition is allowed, the order impugned dated 12.3.2001 (Annexure-1) passed by respondent No. 1 is set aside and the case is remanded back to respondent No. 1 to decide restoration of restoration application and restoration application of the petitioner in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Learned counsel for the parties are directed to inform their clients to remain present before the Board of Revenue on 27.8.2001.;