petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which according to the petitioner was passed without giving opportunity of hearing. As the amount which is required to be deposited for consideration of the appeal, could not be deposited by the petitioner on account of poor financial conditions, the appeal came to be dismissed by means of an order dated 28.11.2020. Both the said order i.e. the order dated 01.10.2020 and the order dated 28.11.2020 are under challenge. In so far as the writ petition relates to challenge of the order dated 28.11.2020, whereby the appeal was dismissed for want of deposit, no interference is called for as it is well settled that the appeal is a creature of statute which can prescribe conditions for availing the said statutory remedy. The petitioner having not complied with the condition for availing statutory remedy of appeal, no fault can be found with the order dated 28.11.2020. However, the fact remains that the appeal has been dismissed without consideration, as such, the doctrine of merger would not apply and the order dated 01.10.2020 will not be deemed to have merged in the order dated 28.11.2020. As the petitioner has also challenged the order dated 01.10.2020 in the present writ petition, the same is to be considered on its merits.
