H.R. Panwar, J. - (1.) By the instant writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders dt. 27.09.2007 and 29.10.2003 Annex.1 and Annex.2 respectively. However, when the matter came up before this Court on 03.04.2008, Mr. J. Gehlot counsel appearing for the petitioner has confined the writ petition only to the extent of giving challenge to the order dt. 27.09.2007 Annex.1 and has given up the challenge to the order Annex.2 dt. 29.10.2003. Thus, the writ petition is confined to the challenge to the order dt. 27.09.2007 passed by respondent No.2 Workman Compensation Commissioner (for short 'the Commissioner' hereinafter).
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Mr. Purkharam Bhanwariya Advocate was engaged by the petitioner to defend his case on receipt of the notice issued by the Commissioner on a claim petition filed by respondent No.1 seeking compensation under the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act of 1923' hereinafter), however, subsequent thereto, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, he left the practice and therefore, the petitioner could not produce the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.K. Prasad v. P. Arumugam, AIR 2001 SC 2497.;