District Forest Officer v. Palani
Case brief
What is this about?
Seven petitioners challenged interlocutory orders via Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227, citing reliance on a prior batch order allowing delay condonation. The High Court, finding no appearance by respondents and identical circumstances to a precedent batch, allowed the CRPs and the underlying I.A.s.
What did the court decide?
The challenged fair and final orders are set aside; the Impugned Interlocutory Applications in I.A. Nos.789, 380, 450, 510, 717, 718, 724, 725, 727, 730, 747, 750, 755 and 758 of 2006 are allowed.