PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.       Counsel for the petitioners present.   Arguments heard.  The impugned order dated 16.07.2013 runs as follows:-

“16.07.2013

        This appeal is put up today.

        None appeared on behalf of the appellants.

        On 01.05.2013 the appellants were ordered to take steps for service on respondents but neither the appellants appeared nor steps have been taken, which shows that the appellants are not interested to proceed with this appeal.

        Therefore, this appeal is hereby dismissed in default of the appellants.

              President                                                                  Member

                                                                             RCC”

2.       The respondents were yet to be served by the State Commission, therefore, this Petition can be disposed of without summoning the respondents.  A bare look on the order itself goes to show that the case was dismissed in default on 16.07.2013.  Counsel for the petitioners submits that the counsel for the petitioners, conducting the case before the State Commission, was under the impression that this case had already been disposed of.  Sh. Sunil Sharma, the previous counsel for the petitioners has explained the same in Para Nos. 2 & 3 of his explanation, which are reproduced here as under:-

          “After going through the order of the State Commission dated 16.07.2013, I checked my file and it was revealed that the appeal was previously listed on 2.7.2012.  On that day there were other cases also pertaining to Telecom which were being decided in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Krishnan.  My junior remained under the impression that like other telecom cases this case has also been decided as per the judgment of the hon’ble Supreme Court therefore he noted on the file as “case decided as per the judgment of M Krishnan under 7B of the Telegraph act. 

          However it appears that this case was not decided on that day and it was adjourned.  Thereafter it was listed on 1.5.13 when the state Commission ordered the appellant to take the steps for service of notice on the respondent.  Since we were under the impression that the appeal has already been decided and the date of listing 1.5.13 was not in our knowledge therefore the order dated 1.5.13 for taking the steps for service could not be known to us.  When the case was next listed on 16.7.13 the state commission in the absence of steps for service dismissed the appeal in default.”

3.       These explanations clearly go to show negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the counsel Sh. Sunil Sharma.  He must have received the copy of the judgment.  It is difficult to fathom why did he wait for more than one year.  It is also pointed out that the free copy was served to the petitioners on 03.07.2014 i.e. after about one year from the date of order.  This is the order from the U.P. State Commission.  It is painful and galling that the Registry of the U.P. State Commission does not act properly as per Law.  The free copy must be sent within a day or two from the pronouncement of order or at the best within one week.

4.       Consequently, in the interest of justice and due to the mistake of Registry of U.P. State Commission, we hereby restore the case, remand it back to the State Commission, U.P.

5.       The petitioners are directed to appear before the State Commission, U.P. on 28.10.2014.  The State Commission of U.P. will send notice to the respondents.  If the petitioners do not cooperate, the State Commission will dismiss their case in default.

6.       The Revision Petition stands disposed of.