- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. Rakesh Bahadur, Advocate, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondent No. 3.
(2.) SINCE the learned counsel for the parties requested that the matter may be disposed of finally, I have heard them and the matter is being disposed of at this stage, finally. It was on 22-5-1995 that the release application was filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for short 'the Act', On the same date an application was filed which was supported by an af fidavit, for issuing a Commission to serve the notices upon the petitioner, who was opposite party in the said proceedings. The application was allowed and thereafter the Advocate Commissioner submitted a report on 27-5-1995 to the effect that the petitioner refused to receive the notices is sued by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority believing and relying upon the report of the Advocate Commis sioner held that service was sufficient and directed the case to proceed ex parte. On 31-5-1995 the release application filed by the respondent No. 3 was allowed ex parte. The petitioner as soon as came to know about the ex parte order, filed an application for setting aside the aforesaid ex pane order. The said application was op posed by respondent No. 3. The prescribed Authority after perusing the record, upheld the validity of the ex. pane order and dis missed the application for setting aside the same. Petitioner, thereafter, filed the present petition challenging the validity of the order dated 31-5-1995 passed by Prescribed Authority.
(3.) MR. R. P. Tiwari, Advocate Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 31-5- 1995 was passed by the Prescribed Authority behind his back and the notice was neither tendered to him nor he has ever refused to receive the same. He further submitted that the procedure prescribed under the rules framed under the Act for the service of notice was not fol lowed ; but a new procedure was adopted by the Prescribed Authority to serve the notices issued by it. He submitted that the Advocate Commissioner submitted an ab solutely false report. The Prescribed Authority has acted illegally and arbitrarily in relying upon the same and in passing the ex pane order which was liable to be set aside. On the other hand Mr. Rakesh Bahadur Advocate submitted that the petitioner refused to receive notices issued by the Prescribed Authority and the report of the Advocate Commissioner was factual ly correct. The Prescribed Authority, there fore, committed no error of jurisdiction in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte order.;