Birat Chandra Dagara Vs Union of India

3 . The petitioner contends that on the said fateful day i.e., 4^th February, 2025, the lawyer conducting the said case fell ill and was indisposed. The aforesaid factum was duly intimated to the authority through e-mail enclosing an application seeking adjournment, but there is no reflection of the aforesaid facts in the impugned order dated 4^th February, 2025.

¶27

4 . Our attention is drawn to the e-mail and an application for adjournment, which appears to have been communicated to the authority before the hearing could commence, yet there is no reflection of the same in the impugned order.

¶28

5 . Mr. Gautam Misra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the authority could not have proceeded to drop the proceedings but the only course open was to dismiss the said proceeding in default in absence of the petitioner. The coinage of the words and the expressions does not whittle down the spirit and tenet of the order.

¶29

6 . The Court must look into the substance and not the nomenclature or the words used therein. The order dated 4^th

¶30

Page 2 of 5

¶31

February, 2025 conveys the intention of the authority that in absence of the petitioner, the revisional application is dismissed for default, despite having used the word ‘dropped’. A plea is sought to be taken that the authority ought not to have proceeded to record any finding on merit of the case in absence of the petitioner, does not appear from the meaningful reading of the said order.

¶32

7 . The intention which could be reasonably gathered from the said order leads no ambiguity that the authority proceeded to dismiss the said proceeding for default of the petitioner to appear in the said matter.

¶33

8 . We are given to understand that there is no provision contained

¶34

in the said Act conferring the power upon the authority to recall the said order.

¶35

9 . Without delving deep into the aforesaid aspects, more particularly, that in absence of any statutory conferment of powers whether the power to recall its order by which the proceeding was dismissed for default is inhered and/or ingrained into the said authority. However, we feel that the moment an application for adjournment was filed citing a ground that the lawyer representing

¶36

for the petitioner suffers from illness, it is an ardent duty of the

¶37

Page 3 of 5

¶38

authority to take into consideration the same and return its finding thereupon. The authority ought not to have proceeded in the slip shod manner without recording the facts eminent from the record more particularly an application for adjournment.

¶39

10 . A litigant should not suffer because of the lapses or the negligence on the part of the Advocate upon whom he reposes trust and confidence that his interest would be taken care of. We have also been taken to various orders passed in the said proceeding wherefrom it appears that the authority on some occasions suo motu adjourned the proceedings citing administrative reasons.

¶40

11 . Though the aforesaid facts are not relevant as the Court must restrict its consideration on the event happened on the day when the order was passed, but the Court while taking into consideration the conduct of the parties, we take note of such fact but the same will not have any bearing at the time of considering the cause shown in the instant writ petition.

¶41

12. Be that as it may, the authority should not have acted in haste more particularly, when the lawyer representing the petitioner was indisposed on the said date and, therefore, we find that the petitioner

¶42

was prevented by a sufficient cause on the day, when the said order

¶43

Page 4 of 5

¶44

was passed by the authority. The order dated 4^th February, 2025 passed in RA 22/13/2023 RC-1, RA 22/14/2023 RC-1 and RA 22/15/2023 RC-1 is hereby set aside.

¶45

13 . The revisional application filed by the petitioner is restored to its original file and number. The authority is directed to decide the said revisional application on merit after affording an opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties. The authority shall take endeavor to dispose of the said proceedings within four months from the date of the communication of this order.

¶46

14 . It goes without saying that none of the parties would protract the litigations by filing frequent applications for adjournments, unless necessitated by unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances.

¶47

15 . Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.

Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman)

Judge

S.K. Behera

Signature Not Verified

¶53

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIRA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Jul-2025 12:32:38

¶54

Page 5 of 5

Birat Chandra Dagara v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birat Chandra Dagara v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Fortune Group, Bhadrak Vs Union of India

Rahul Kumar Satapathy Vs the Commissioner Gst, Central Excise and Customs, Bbsr

M/S. Raghunath Jew Pani Panchayat, Baleswar Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Baleswar

Birat Chandra Dagara Vs Union of India

Susanta Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Vip Marble Centre, Nabarangpur Vs Deputy Commissioner of Ct and Gst, Nabarangpur Circle