M/s Resham Singh and brothers v. State of Punjab & Anr.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S.Puri, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. K.S.Boparai, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 & 3. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL) CM No.6755 of 2012 Prayer in this application is to implead the Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board as a party. Notice to counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner accepts notice and states that he has no objection if the Punjab Agriculture Marketing Board is impleaded as a party. In view of the averments made in the application and the statement made by counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner, the application CWP No.1913 of 2012 (O&M) [ 2 ] ::::::: is allowed and the Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board, S.C.O. No.149-152, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, is impleaded as respondent No.3. Registry is directed to amend the memo of parties accordingly.

CWP No.1913 of 2012 The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 23.02.2010 (P-3), vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default, and order dated 06.01.2011 (P-5), vide which his application for restoration of the appeal was dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may have been remiss in his obligation to put in appearance and press the appeal but the petitioner had entrusted his appeal to an advocate and he was not aware that his counsel was not putting in appearance or that his appeal had been dismissed in default. It is further argued that the petitioner was not informed either by his counsel or by the Appellate Authority that his appeal has been dismissed. The bona fide error committed by the petitioner may, therefore, be condoned by allowing the writ petition. Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the application for restoration was filed after more than 8 months.

It is, therefore, apparent that the application filed by the petitioner lacks bona fide and was, therefore, rightly dismissed. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. It is true that the petitioner was remiss in his obligation to follow up his appeal and ensure the presence of his counsel, but we cannot CWP No.1913 of 2012 (O&M) [ 3 ] ::::::: ignore that litigants repose implicit faith in their counsel and expect their counsel to follow up the appeal by putting in appearance and addressing arguments. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that non- appearance of a counsel cannot visit a litigant with adverse consequences. In view of what has been held here-in-above, we allow the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders, subject to payment of `10,000/- to respondent No.3 as costs, and remit the matter to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits. Parties are directed to put in appearance before the Appellate Authority on 03.07.2012, who shall decide the appeal within three months from that date. (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE

11.05.2012 vinod* (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE