- (1.) The learned Single Judge allowed C.W.P. No. 2409 of 1996 in which none was present on behalf of the respondents at the time of hearing. The four private respondents in the petition filed an application for review before the learned Single Judge on the sole ground that they were not served in the writ petition and, therefore, the order be recalled and the writ petition be heard in their presence. That application was dismissed against which is a Letters Patent Appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation. The Letters Patent Bench was not inclined to condone the delay and faced with this situation, the counsel for the appellants stated that while dismissing the review application the learned Single Judge had orally observed that an application for rehearing of the writ petition should have been filed. Consequently, the Letters Patent Bench noticed the submission of the learned counsel in the order dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal and observed as follows :- "The appellants may, if so advised, apply to the learned Single Judge for rehearing, but there is no ground to condone the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal."
(2.) After the aforesaid order, a fresh application for rehearing of the writ petition was filed on the ground that the applicants were not served with the writ petition and consequently, after setting aside the order, the writ petition be reheard on merits. That application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge with the following order :- "No ground for rehearing. Dismissed." The affected private respondents in the writ petition have again come up in Letters Patent Appeal.
(3.) Shri Puran Chand, counsel for the appellants, has urged that his clients were not heard at the time of the hearing of the writ petition and since the learned Single Judge dismissed the review petition holding that the same was not competent, the application for rehearing should have been allowed.;