ORDER
S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President
1. This is a restoration application filed with reference to the order of the Tribunal dated 15-7-1991 dismissing their appeal for default and for non-prosecution.
2. The learned counsel drew attention to their petition and emphasised that “on 15-7-1991, the counsel for the appellant was unable to attend to the hearing of this Hon’ble Tribunal because the counsel was under the impression that the present appeal was connected with another appeal filed by the Food Corporation of India. Since the appeal filed by the Food Corporation of India was not listed for hearing on 15-7-1991, the counsel for the appellant assumed that the matter will be adjourned. Accordingly, the counsel for the appellant requested the Senior Assistant of the Appellant namely, B.L. Vashist to attend the hearing of this matter since the matter had only to be adjourned.”
3. On 15-7-1991 the Hon’ble Tribunal did not take cognizance of their request for adjournment and felt that since no one was appearing for the appellant for several times the appellant is not interested in following the matter and dismissed the same.
4. It was his contention that their counsel did not appear and they are under the impression that the matter may be adjourned and the appellant is very much interested in contesting the appeal.
That the appellant had been deligent in pursuing the appeal and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellant and he would therefore pray that the appeal may be restored.
5. The learned DR opposed the prayer stating that the appellants were given sufficient time and opportunity but did not care to pursue the matter seriously. Further Shri B.L. Vashist who presented himself on 15-7-1991 was not a duly authorised person or letter of authority holder and therefore the cognizance of his presence and request for adjournment was not taken by the Tribunal and even now they have not shown sufficient reasons for non-appearance of the appellants or their counsel.
6. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We find that our order of 15-7-1991 reads as follows:
ORDER
“None for the appellants.
One Shri B.L. Vashist said to be senior Assistant appeared but he is neither able to show any power of attorney or letter of authority nor in a position to argue or explain and there is no counsel.
In the circumstances, we cannot take cognizance of Shri Vashist’s request for adjournment.
It is observed that the records that on 22-4-1991 it was observed inter alia that “considering the past several adjournments in this case there will be no adjournment and the parties informed”. In spite of it the party sought further adjournment on 9-5-1991 and today once again no authorised person has appeared. In the circumstances we feel that the appellants are not serious in pursuing the matter. As such the appeal is dismissed for default and non-prosecution”.
We consider that in the restoration application the appellants have merely referred to the impression that they had about the matter being connected with some other matter but even now they have not explained as to how it is connected and in any case it was for them to have taken the precaution properly and obtained the orders of the Bench in case the matter was connected with another.
Similarly their contention that they have taken the question of non-appearance of their counsel with the Ministry of Law and Justice is by itself not sufficient. Again merely sending an Assistant without any letter of authority or power of attorney shows that the appellants were not careful or cautious.
Furthermore the Bench had taken into account their past conduct and noted past several adjournments and the fact that they had been cautioned on 22-1-1991 that no further adjournment may be given.
Therefore their contention that they were under the impression that they may be granted adjournment was incorrect.
In the above circumstances we are of the opinion that sufficient cause has not been shown. As such we dismiss the restoration application.