Writ interference and restoration of dismissed appeal were refused after the explanation for non-appearance was found unsatisfactory.

Interference under Article 226 was declined where the Board of Revenue refused to restore a second appeal dismissed in default for non-appearance. The petitioner had been given repeated opportunities but failed to prosecute the matter, and the restoration plea was rejected for negligence. The explanation for absence was found unsatisfactory because there was no proof that the counsel said to have gone out was the counsel on record, and no adequate reason was shown for anyone to appear on the petitioner's behalf. The court treated sufficiency of cause as a question of fact and found no error warranting writ interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was warranted against the Board of Revenue's order refusing restoration of the second appeal dismissed in default for non-appearance.

Analysis: The petitioner had been afforded repeated opportunities before the Sales Tax Officer and had not availed them. The second appeal had been dismissed in default, and the restoration application was rejected on the ground of negligence in prosecuting the appeal. The explanation offered for non-appearance was found unsatisfactory, including the absence of proof that the counsel said to have gone out was actually the counsel on record, and no adequate reason was shown for anyone appearing on the petitioner's behalf on the hearing date. The finding on sufficient cause was treated as a question of fact, and no error was found in the Board of Revenue's order justifying writ interference.

Conclusion: Interference under Article 226 was declined, and the challenge to the restoration order failed.

---