Judgment:
Mahesh Grover, J.
The only grievance raised in the instant petition is that the order under appeal was passed without hearing the petitioner.
It is contended that on the relevant date when the appeal was fixed for hearing, counsel for the petitioner could not appear resulting in the passing of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer only to the limited extent that he be given opportunity to represent his case.
Keeping in view the facts of the case although there is no plausible ground which could explain the absence of the petitioner before the Appellate Authority yet considering the controversy and keeping in view the interest of justice, the instant petition is disposed of with following directions:-
i) that the matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh by affording him an opportunity of hearing.
ii) that the petitioner either himself or through his counsel shall appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 15.6.2012 and thereafter, the matter shall be heard afresh.
iii)that under no circumstances, the petitioner shall be granted more than two opportunities which will also include the one on which date he puts his appearance before the Deputy Commissioner as noted in the above part of the order.
In the given set of circumstances, the instant writ petition is disposed of in above terms and impugned order dated 23.11.2010 is set aside however, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs which shall be deposited before the Legal Services Authority, Haryana.