Court remands case for fresh decision due to failure to consider all aspects, orders quashed.

The Court remanded the matter back to DRT-II for a fresh decision on accepting the written statement, finding that the Tribunal had not properly considered all aspects and rejected the application without due appreciation of the facts. As a result, the petition was allowed, and the orders of DRT-II and DRAT were quashed. DRT-II was instructed to reconsider the request to admit the written statement, with no costs awarded in the case.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to orders of DRAT and DRT-II regarding non-condonation of delay and rejection of written statement.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged orders of DRAT and DRT-II regarding the non-condonation of delay and rejection of the written statement under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

2. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection before DRT, which was rejected. Subsequently, the written statement was refused to be taken on record due to delay. The Court noted that the preliminary objection was not a written statement but an objection on maintainability. The detailed written statement was filed within 30 days of the rejection of the preliminary objection.

3. The Court found that the Tribunal did not consider all aspects of the matter and rejected the application without proper appreciation of the facts. Therefore, the Court decided to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on taking the written statement on record in accordance with the law.

4. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned orders of DRT-II and DRAT were quashed. DRT-II was directed to reconsider the petitioner's request to take the written statement on record. No costs were awarded in this case.

---