BHADRESWAR BORO Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, S.T.A. TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has come up for admission. The respondents are well represented by Mr. P. Prasad the learned Govt. Advocate. We have perused the impugned order and find that it would cause unnecessary delay in dispensation of justice if we issue a Rule and hear the parties who are well prepared, to argue the case. Surely, it would come a for disposal after a couple of years and the petitioner would be deprived of his rightful relief. To uphold the cause of justice, we suggested to the learned counsel for both the parties about full hearing and final disposal of the matter right today. The learned counsel have agreed to our suggestion. Therefore, upon hearing -the learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to dispose this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India.

(2.) THE intrinsic facts of the case: The petitioner appealed under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short 'the Act'. The appeal came up for admission on 21-12-81. On that date the learned Presiding Officer, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Assam, Gauhati for short "the Tribunal", dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that "none for the appellant" was present to press the appeal. Later, the petitioner turned on and filed an application for restoration of the appeal, which was turned down by "the Tribunal" on 29-12-81 on the score that it had no jurisdiction to restore the appeal to file. In this writ application the petitioner Questions the validity of the orders as well as the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to make the lethal order of dismissal.

(3.) IT is indubitable that there is no prescribed procedure for hearing such an appeal but the mandate of Section 64 of "the Act" is to "give a decision" on the appeal. Now, the question that crops up is whether at the stage of admission, if the appellant and/or his counsel does not turn up, is it the obligation of the Tribunal, (a) to adjourn the case, or, (b) to dismiss it for default of the parties, Or (c) to render an ex parte order admitting or rejecting the appeal In our opinion the mandatory provision of Section 64 of "the Act" enjoins the Tribunal to give a decision even at the stage of admission. There is no power 'conferred on the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for default of the parties, as we have in other procedural laws. Such power of dismissal for default of the parties is by necessary implication prohibited in the statute. In our opinion at the admission stage, the learned Tribunal should peruse the Memo of appeal land the impugned order and thereafter render its decision giving reasons in support thereof. In the absence of the parties the Tribunal may adjourn the proceedings. However, it is not desirable to do so unless the Tribunal thinks it fit to adjourn. The discretionary power to adjourn the date of hearing is implicit in Section 64 of "the Act". The power to dismiss an appeal at the admission stage, not on merit but far default of appearance of the appellant is drastic and penal. Such lethal power must be conferred on the Tribunal by the statute creating it or the relevant rules under the statute. The power of dismissal of an appeal, in such contingency, is nowhere to be found in "the Act" Or "the Rules" framed there under. It follows, therefore, that such powers have not been conferred on the "tribunal and if the Tribunal so dismisses an appeal it amounts to exercise of jurisdiction not vested in it by law; it must be held to be an order without, jurisdiction.