Restoration of withdrawn appeal after failed amnesty bid, with no further pre-deposit and hearing on merits allowed

Where a second appeal is withdrawn to pursue an amnesty scheme but the scheme benefit is not ultimately obtained, the Gujarat HC held that the withdrawal should not leave the litigant without a remedy. The Court found that, in these peculiar facts, the withdrawal order deprived the applicant of adjudication on merits, especially after substantial deposits had already been made. It quashed the withdrawal order, restored the second appeal to the Tribunal's original file, and directed that no further pre-deposit be insisted upon for hearing the appeal on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order permitting withdrawal of the second appeal should be quashed and the appeal restored for hearing on merits, and whether insistence on further pre-deposit should be dispensed with in the peculiar facts of the case.

Analysis: The writ applicant had withdrawn the second appeal only to avail the amnesty scheme, but the scheme benefit was not ultimately obtained. In these peculiar circumstances, the withdrawal order operated to deprive the applicant of an adjudication on merits. The Court noted that the litigant should not be left remediless and that the withdrawal had occurred in the context of an attempt to join the scheme, with the applicant having already deposited substantial amounts.

Conclusion: The order dated 13.02.2020 was quashed and set aside. The second appeal was ordered to be restored to the Tribunal's original file and decided on merits, and the Tribunal was directed not to insist upon any further pre-deposit for hearing the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal is withdrawn to avail a statutory scheme but the benefit of that scheme is not obtained, the court may restore the appeal so that the litigant is not left without a remedy and the dispute can be decided on merits.

---