Jyoti Sekhar Kalita vs Managing Director Assam State ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 8550 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Jyoti Sekhar Kalita vs Managing Director Assam State ... on 21 November, 2024

Author: Malasri Nandi

Bench: Malasri Nandi

                                                                     Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010020732023




                                                              undefined

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : MACApp./198/2023

            JYOTI SEKHAR KALITA
            S/O RAJU KALITA,
            R/O HOUSE NO. 44,
            VILL.- PANJABARI BATAHGOLI,
            P.S.- SATGAON,
            GUWAHATI- 781037, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.

            VERSUS

            MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
            PALTANBAZAAR,
            P.S.- PALTANBAZAAR,
            GUWAHATI- 781007, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A ROY, O ASSUMI

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. G C BORAH,




                                   BEFORE
                     HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI

                                         ORDER

Date : 21.11.2024

Heard Mr. A. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. G.C. Borah, learned counsel, ASTC.

This is an application under Section 173 of M.V. Act, 1988, against the impugned judgment and order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the learned MACT Page No.# 2/2

No. 3, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 2080/2017.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment was delivered by the learned Tribunal by holding that the disability certificate was not proved by examining the person who issued the same. As such, he has prayed that the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for examination of the person who issued the said disability certificate.

Mr. Borah, learned counsel, ASTC submits that the case was proceeded ex- parte before the learned Tribunal against the ASTC though notice was not served properly and prays to remand the matter before the learned Tribunal with a direction to the learned Tribunal to allow the ASTC to participate in cross- examination of the witnesses by vacating the ex-parte order. It is also submitted that the petition for adjournment filed before the learned Tribunal appears to have been submitted by the counsel for the appellants/claimants, and not by the counsel for ASTC.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the documents available in the case record.

Considering all, the matter be remanded back to the learned Tribunal and the appellant and the respondent, ASTC may approach before the learned Tribunal with an appropriate application to consider their respective representation. However, the learned Tribunal is directed to pass any order after hearing both the parties, in accordance with law.

In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant