V. G. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 12. 01. 2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, in case no. RB. RTA. 213/2003 as per Annexure 'c', allowing the revision petition and setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Belgaum and directing the petitioner herein to agitate his claim before the competent Civil Court. ( 2 ) IT is averred in the petition that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is illegal and without jurisdiction as the revision petition in which the petitioner herein was the respondent was dismissed for default on 08. 11. 2005 and without issuing notice to the petitioner, the revision petition was restored to file on 23. 11. 2005 and thereafter, order has been passed on 12. 01. 2006 allowing the revision petition without hearing the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the order dated 08. 11. 2005 could not be recalled without notifying the petitioner and wherefore, the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the High Court Government pleader appearing for respondent No. 1 and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted with reference to the order sheet produced as per Annexure 'b' in respect of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, belgaum, that the appeal was dismissed on 08. 11. 2005. Thereafter, it has been restored without notifying the counsel appearing for the petitioner and hence, the impugned order allowing the revision petition is liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the application was filed for recalling the order dated 08. 11. 2005 after serving the same on the counsel appearing for the petitioner herein and valid order has been passed after considering the application. ( 6 ) LEARNED High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 1 argued in support of the order of the Deputy Commissioner. ( 7 ) I have considered the contentions of the Counsel appearing for the parties. ( 6 ) LEARNED High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 1 argued in support of the order of the Deputy Commissioner. ( 7 ) I have considered the contentions of the Counsel appearing for the parties. ( 8 ) IT is clear from a perusal of the order sheet produced by the petitioner, contents of which have not been disputed, that the appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner was dismissed for non-prosecution on 08. 11. 2005 and wherefore, when the appeal was dismissed for default, the same could not have been restored without notifying the petitioner herein, who was the respondent in the revision petition. Certified copy of the application for recalling shows that the application was filed on 24. 11. 2005 and the affidavit was sworn to on 24. 11. 2005 and wherefore, the question of restoring the revision petition on 23. 11. 2006 did not arise and even assuming that there is a mistake in mentioning the date in the order sheet maintained by the Deputy commissioner, it is clear that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner, who was a party to the revision petition was notified on the application for restoration of the revision petition. Therefore, it is clear that when the revision petition was dismissed and was not formally restored, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the revision petition is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly, I pass the following Order: the Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 12. 01. 2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, belgaum, as per Annexure 'c' is set aside. The revision petition is remitted to the Deputy commissioner, Belgaum, to hear the application dated 24. 11. 2005 for restoration of the revision petition and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 are directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, on 03. 07. 2006. Deputy commissioner shall pass order on the said revision petition expeditiously and at any rate not later than two months from 03. 07. 2006.