Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) This review application is arising out of an order which was passed by this Court on 18th September, 2003. Such order was passed in presence of both the parties. In disposing of the writ I directed the matter to be heard by appellate authority on the basis of the submission of the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. This review application arises on that score.
(2.) Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner contended that the cause of action for filing of the writ petition before this Court was for not giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by the Hearing Officer. Therefore, the matter is to be heard by the Hearing Officer first. If the appellate authority is directed to hear out on the basis of the submission of the respondents, in that case, they will lose one of the valuable opportunities of hearing before the Hearing Officer. No notice was served upon the appropriate address of the petitioner so that she could not be present before the appropriate authority. Therefore, in absence of the petitioner an ex parte order was passed by the Hearing Officer.
(3.) Mr. Barin Banerjee, Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities, contended before this Court that forum of appeal is available from the original order. Without invoking the jurisdiction of such appellate forum the petitioner straightaway invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In disposing of the writ it was rightly held by this Court that the matter would be heard by the appellate authority and for such reason alone he had conceded before this Court that if the appeal is filed no plea of limitation will be taken by him. There is no prayer in the writ petition to proceed before the Hearing Officer. In the prayer the petitioner himself sought for a direction to file an appeal.;