ORDER 1. Heard. 2. This petition relates to an order passed by Board of Revenue in Restoration Case No. 1400/I/09, whereby the Restoration Application preferred by the petitioners has been rejected on date 8.12.2009. 3. Shri Deepak Shrivastava learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that on account of Heavy Rains, the counsel for petitioners could not attend the hearing before the Board of Revenue on date 5.10.2009 and when by way of preferring a Restoration Application the reason was assigned for absence, the same was not accepted by the Board of Revenue, on the ground that the other cases were taken up and heard on that date by Board of Revenue. 4. Ms. Nidhi Patankar, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents/State has no serious objection for Restoration of the matter. 5. It is a cardinal principle of law that Courts and Tribunals should hear the merits of the matter and should not refuse hearing on technical ground and since the petitioners had made out a good cause seeking Restoration of Application/Revision/Appeal, it was not justified for the Board of Revenue to reject the same on the ground that the Board has heard some other cases on that day. It was necessary for the Board of Revenue to have considered the "cause" assigned by the petitioner and the inability of either the petitioner or his learned counsel for not attending the Courts/Tribunal on a particular date and not the fact of functioning of the Board inspite of Heavy Rains. 6. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner's have made out a good case for restoration of their matter, therefore, the Order passed by the Board of Revenue on date 8.12.2009 in Restoration Case No. 1400/I/2009 is hereby set aside and consequently the Board of Revenue is directed to hear the Original Revision Case No. 1192-A/07 on its merits. 7. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is finally disposed of.