Judgment:
Nooty. Ramamohana Rao, J.
1. There is any amount of criticism made in the manner in which the learned Single Judge has rendered Judgment in the Writ Petition. We are refraining ourselves from recording the details of the said criticism. However, with a view to satisfy ourselves as to whether proper consideration has been bestowed by the learned single Judge, we went through the Judgment rendered entirely on our own and in an independent manner. We find, that the criticism made against the manner in which the case was handled and Judgment was rendered, are not without any merit. We have only avoided to refer to the criticism and recording our findings thereon, as we do not want the same to be form part of record of this Court.
2. Ends of justice, in our considered opinion would be better served, if we set aside the Judgment of the learned single Judge and restore the Writ Petition, so that both sides will have a fair and equitable chance to address all the issues before the learned single Judge and establish their respective cases. Since restoring the Writ Petition to the file of the learned single Judge would cause no prejudice to either party, we have arrived at such a safe course of action.
3. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed, the Judgment rendered on 24.06.2015 in W.P.No.7812 of 2014, by the learned single Judge (Hon'ble Mr.Justice C.S.Karnan), is set aside and the Writ Petition stands restored to its file.
Let the Writ Petition be listed for consideration, as per roaster, before the learned single Judge. No costs.