JUDGMENT : 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. We have heard learned advocates for the appellant as well as for respondent No.3 who is the only contesting party. In our view, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the Review Petition filed by the appellant and should have heard the main matter on the merits after hearing all the contesting parties. Admittedly, the appellant was not heard when an ex-parte order was passed by the Tribunal in favour of contesting respondent no.3. When the appellant moved a Review Petition it was also rejected. As admittedly, the appellant was not heard when the original order was passed and more so, when counsel for the appellant was held up in the High Court and could not appear before the Tribunal, it was just and proper for the Tribunal to have redecided the main matter after hearing the appellant. 4. The order dismissing the Review Petition as well as the original ex parte order dated 29th June 1989 passed by the Tribunal in Representation Petition No. 3055 of 1987 are, therefore, set aside and the Representation Petition is restored to the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to redecide it on merits after hearing the parties. We, however, make it clear that we express no opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties. Ordered accordingly. No costs.