Counsel's unauthorised withdrawal cannot waive substantive rights; resulting order falls with the invalid withdrawal.

A withdrawal of an approval-related application made by counsel was held not binding on the appellant because the record did not show authority or instructions to abandon the claim. The Tribunal applied the principle that counsel cannot compromise or relinquish a client's substantive rights without authorisation. As the withdrawal was unsustainable, the order recording that withdrawal was set aside and the application was restored. The later order passed on the basis of the withdrawn application also fell, because it had no independent footing once the withdrawal was invalidated.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application withdrawn before the Tribunal through counsel without demonstrated instructions from the appellant could bind the appellant, and whether the consequential order passed thereafter could survive.

Analysis: The application seeking approval-related relief had been withdrawn on the statement of a counsel who was not shown to have been authorised by the appellant to take that course. The record did not establish any instruction from the appellant to withdraw the application, and the statement recorded in court could not be treated as a valid abandonment of a substantive claim in the absence of authority. The later order, having been passed after the withdrawal, stood on the footing of that withdrawal and could not independently survive once the withdrawal itself was found unsustainable. The reasoning applied the settled principle that a counsel cannot compromise or relinquish a client's substantive rights without authority.

Conclusion: The withdrawal was not binding on the appellant, the order recording such withdrawal was set aside, the application was restored, and the subsequent order passed thereafter was also set aside as no longer surviving.

---