- (1.) This case has a chequered history, as is evident from the orders passed by this Court from time to time. The writ petition had been filed by the petitioners challenging certain orders passed by the Transport Authorities under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the 'Act 1988') reducing the area of operation of Three Wheelers and thereby ;hanging the condition of permits issued in favour of the members of the petitioner Samiti. The writ petition was entertained and vide order dated 26.4.2005, this Court asked the State Authorities to file counter-affidavit and an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners staying the operation of the order dated 6.9.2004, by which the limit of plying the Tempo and Taxi was reduced from 40 kms. to 16 kms. The matter came up for hearing on 28.4.2006 and though the counter-affidavit had not been filed by the respondents but as none appeared for the petitioners, the petition was dismissed in default and the interim order passed by the Court earlier was vacated. Petitioners filed an application to recall the said order dated 28.4.2006. The said application was heard on 19.8.2006 and considering the fact and averments made in the application and the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the said application that the petitioners' Counsel was out of station and the attendant of the case was under the impression that the matter would not be taken up on that date as he watched the proceedings in the Court up to 3.35 p.m., the said application was allowed and the order of dismissal of the writ petition in default dated 28.4.2006 was recalled and the writ petition was restored to its original number. When the Counsel was asked to argue the matter for admission, he expressed his inability and pointed out that he was not having even the Motor Vehicles Act and it was insisted that the matter could not be heard for admission as it was listed only under the heading 'for orders'. He further stated that the respondents had not filed reply and the case should be listed for hearing on some other date. However, the Court did not agree with the said submission and passed the following order : "Learned Counsel for the petitioners is not prepared to argue the case on merits in spite of the fact that we had provided him with a copy of the Motor Vehicles Act. His only prayer is that the matter may be adjourned. The petition had been dismissed in default but today we have recalled the order. The learned Counsel for the petitioners should have prepared on merits. In such a fact situation, we have no option but to dismiss the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
(2.) Thereafter, a review application has been filed on similar grounds, i.e. matter could not have been dismissed without listing it under the heading 'for hearing'; counter-affidavit has not been filed by the respondents. The relief sought in the review application is that the order dated 19.8.2006 be reviewed and the writ petition be heard and decided on merits otherwise the petitioners-applicants shall suffer irreparably.
(3.) We have heard Shri Subodh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners applicants and Shri C.K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.;