Tribunal Rejects Application Due to Absence, Emphasizes Adherence to Procedural Rules

The Tribunal dismissed the application for non-prosecution due to the unjustifiable absence of the appellants and their advocate for three consecutive hearings. The request for reconsideration and modification of the previous order was rejected, emphasizing the importance of diligent pursuit of legal matters and adherence to procedural rules. The Tribunal clarified that assumptions about Bench availability cannot justify absence, highlighting the necessity of direct communication with the Tribunal and proper adherence to hearing procedures. The application was ultimately rejected, underscoring the significance of following proper communication and procedural rules in legal proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Dismissal of application for non-prosecution due to absence of the appellants.
2. Request for reconsideration and modification of the order dated 11-1-2010.
3. Grounds for absence of the appellants and their advocate during hearings.
4. Applicability of rules regarding the hearing of review applications by the same Bench.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal dismissed the application for non-prosecution as the appellants and their advocate were absent for three consecutive hearings. The order dated 11-1-2010 highlighted the absence of the appellants on earlier hearing dates, leading to the dismissal of their application.

2. The current application sought reconsideration and modification of the order dated 11-1-2010. It clarified that the appeal No. E/604 of 2002 was not dismissed, but an application for rectification of a mistake in the order dated 25-9-2008 was dismissed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the failure of the appellants to pursue the matter diligently.

3. The grounds cited for the absence of the appellants and their advocate on 11-1-2010 were related to misinformation received via telephone. They believed that the Bench which had previously heard the matter would not be available, hence the matter would not be heard. However, the Tribunal emphasized that such assumptions cannot justify absence, especially without concrete reasons or prior communication with the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal clarified the rule that a review application should ideally be heard by the same Bench that decided the matter initially. However, exceptions exist when the original members are unavailable. In this case, one member had retired, and the appellants were aware that the original members were not present on the hearing date. The Tribunal emphasized that mere assumptions about the Bench's availability cannot justify absence, and litigants must communicate any objections directly to the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the application for reconsideration due to the unjustifiable absence of the appellants and their advocate, emphasizing the importance of proper communication and adherence to procedural rules in legal proceedings.

---