- (1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that respondent no.4 has not properly appreciated the restoration application, preferred by the present petitioner for restoration of his revision application bearing Revision Case No. (C) 7 of 2005, which was initially dismissed for default, thereafter, restoration application was preferred, thereafter, again it was restored and, thereafter, for no reason the same was dismissed only on the ground that there is no power of review vested in respondent no.4. This order was passed by respondent no.4 on December 10, 2008 (Annexure 4 to the memo of present petition).
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case: (i) It appears that initially the present petitioner had challenged the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, dated March 29, 2005 in Confiscation Appeal No. 4 of 2002 by way of revision petition before respondent no.4; (ii) It appears that for any reason the person representing the petitioner might have remained absent and, therefore, the revision application of the petitioner was dismissed for default; .(iii) It appears that thereafter, the restoration application was preferred (but in fact heading to that application was given: Review Application) and Revision Case No. (C) 7 of 2005 was restored to its original file; .(iv) It appears from the impugned order at Annexure 4 that suddenly some wisdom must have been prevailed upon respondent no.4 and, therefore, abruptly it was held by respondent no.4 that he cannot restore the application of the petitioner, because there is no power of review as the petitioner (who is claiming ownership upon a tractor) has titled his application of restoration as 'review application; .(v) It appears that respondent no.4 is too much technical officer; .(vi) It appears that with a wisdom respondent no.4 ought to have appreciated that basically the application is a restoration application and not a review application. Title of the application is not to be seen but the substance of the application ought to have been understood and appreciated by respondent no.4. There may be a mistaken title of the application but the sum and substance of that application preferred by the petitioner, who is praying for release of the confiscated tractor, is nothing but a restoration application. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by respondent no.4, which is an error apparent on the face of the record. (vii) It appears that respondent no.4 is expecting too much legal language from the owner of the tractor, namely, from the present petitioner, which is not warranted looking to the facts of the present case. What is needed by the society ought to have been understood by the deciding agency i.e. by respondent no.4. Such a simple aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated and unnecessarily the small man has to prefer a petition and now will have to wait for much more longer period to get his tractor released from the clutches of the government servant. Whenever a matter is dismissed for default for want of appearance of a lawyer or a party representing it ought to have been appreciated before dismissal for default that for a mistake of a lawyer innocent party ought not to suffer. Respondent no.4 ought to have enquired into the matter as to why the lawyer, who has represented the petitioner, was absent. Much more time has been consumed in this matter only because of too much technical approach of respondent no.4. He ought to have restored the application looking to the facts of the case, at the most, by awarding some cost. In view of the above facts and reasons, I hereby restore Revision Case No. (C) 7 of 2005 to its original file and hereby direct respondent no.4 to decide the same on its own 3 merits, in accordance with law and I hereby impose a cost of Rs.100/ -(One hundred) to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents within a period of four weeks from today and I hereby direct respondent no.4 to dispose of Revision Case No. (C) 7 of 2005 as expeditiously as possible and practicable on its own merits, preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, passed by this Court. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.;