ORDER
J.S. Khehar, J.
1. The present writ petition impugns the order of cancellation of lease passed by the Estate Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority. The petitioners also impugn the consequential orders passed under the Public Premises Act. It needs to be noticed that in view of the cancellation orders passed by the authorities referred to above, the petitioners as well as their tenant, the State Bank of India have been ordered to be evicted from the premises in question.
2. The only contention which is necessary to be dealt with while disposing of the present writ petition is that the petitioners were not heard during the course of the appeal. In this behalf, it is pointed out that during the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of cancellation passed by the Estate Officer, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 1.9.1998 dismissed the appeal in default. The petitioners moved an application on 22.12.1998 for the recall of the order dated 1.9.1998 and for the restoration of the appeal. The application for restoration of the appeal was allowed on 26.2.1999, however, without notice either to the petitioners or to the petitioners counsel. On the same date i.e. 26.2.1999, the appeal was disposed of on merits in the absence of the petitioners or their counsel. The solitary contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that aforesaid appeal cannot be considered to have been disposed of after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
3. It is conceded by the learned counsel representing the respondents that dates of hearing of application as well as the appeal are specifically intimated to counsel as per the procedure adopted by the Appellate Authority. And that so far as the present case is concerned, the Appellate Authority concededly did not intimate the date of hearing to the petitioners or the counsel representing the petitioners when it disposed of the application for restoration of the appeal on 26.2.1999, nor was any such intimation given to the petitioners or their counsel while disposing of the appeal on merits.
4. On the short ground that the appeal has been decided without hearing the petitioners or their counsel, the appellate order dated 26.2.1999 Annexure P-6 is liable to be set aside. The same is accordingly set aside. All consequential orders are also liable to be set aside, accordingly, order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 4.8.1999 is also set aside.
5. It is only after finalisation of the cancellation order that proceedings under the Public Premises Act can be initiated against a party. Since the appellate order as well as the revisional order have been set aside, it is obvious that the proceedings would not have been initiated under the Public Premises Act. For the said reason, the orders passed under the Public Premises Act whereby the petitioners and their tenant, the State Bank of India were evicted from the premises are also set aside.
6. In view of the above, it would be imperative for the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 26.8.2002. It would be necessary for the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal expeditiously in view of the fact that the petitioners as well as their tenant, the State Bank of India have been evicted from the property. Accordingly, it is directed that the Appellate Authority shall dispose of the appeal within two months.
7. The instant order should not be considered as any opinion expressed by this Court on the issue of restoration of possession. It will be open to the petitioners to move an application for restoration of possession, which, if moved, would be decided in accordance with law.
Copy of the order be furnished to the parties dasti on payment of usual charges.