Judgment :- 1. This writ petition shows yet another instance where authorities who are not legally trained were empowered to decide the rights of parties. Due to wrong procedure adopted by the first respondent, unnecessarily, the 4th respondent was put to hardship. 2. The petitioner who is an employer has filed the writ petition, challenging an order dated 16.08.2007, wherein and by which the second respondent viz., Collector of Chennai had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,82,995/- along with interest at the rate of 12% with effect from 20.10.2003 within 15 days, failing which they were threatened with revenue recovery action. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 13.11.2007. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted interim stay on condition that the petitioner deposits the entire claim amount as ordered by the Commissioner failing which it was informed that the interim stay will be vacated. It is now stated that the amount has been deposited by the petitioner. 4. When the matter came up on 25.04.2011, private notice was ordered to the fourth respondent. Since private notice came back unserved, this Court directed the petitioner to take substituted service by paper publication in Tamil newspaper. Accordingly, an advertisement was issued on 24.06.2011 in the Dhinaboomi intimating the 4th respondent about the pendency of the writ petition. Even thereafter, when there was no representation on the side of the 4th respondent, this Court on finding that the 4th respondent was represented through counsel before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner directed the name of the same counsel to be printed. Accordingly, the names of Mr.U.M.Ravichandran and K.A.Balasubramanian were printed in the cause list. 5. In the normal course, this Court would not have entertained a writ petition against a mere notice calling for the petitioner to deposit the amount as ordered by the Commissioner since there was no substantial challenge to the order passed by the first respondent Commissioner. However, on the assertion made by the petitioner that the order passed in W.C.No.396 of 2004 dated 08.09.2005 was already revoked by the Commissioner, this Court directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to produce the original records relating to W.C.Case No.396 of 2004. Accordingly, the original records were produced and perused by this Court. The learned counsel for both sides were also allowed to peruse the records. 6. It transpires that the workmen's compensation claim was made by the 4th respondent. Accordingly, the original records were produced and perused by this Court. The learned counsel for both sides were also allowed to peruse the records. 6. It transpires that the workmen's compensation claim was made by the 4th respondent. The said claim was entertained as W.C.Case No.396 of 2004 and notice was issued to the Management. Subsequently, an order dated 08.09.2005 came to be passed by the Commissioner ordering compensation for a sum of Rs.1,82,995/-. In that proceedings, it was stated that the petitioner was made ex parte on 08.08.2005. On the side of the 4th respondent, he examined himself as P.W.1 and one J.R.R.Thiyagarajan was examined as P.W.2 and 4 documents were filed and marked as Exs.P1 to P4. 7. Subsequently, the petitioner Management filed an interim application which was received by the office of the first respondent on 24.04.2006 with Serial Number 004240. In that application the petitioner wanted to set aside the ex-parte order. In the affidavit filed in support of the unnumbered application, it was contended that the Management did not receive any notice from the Commissioner. The commissioner instead of ordering notice on the said application, before deciding the matter, made an endorsement on the very petition itself: ."Reopen the case 09.05.2006 - 3.00 pm - signed 24.04.2006" 8. But curiously in the notes file, there is no reference to such endorsement to such endorsement. But however, there is a subsequent endorsement showing that the matter was called on several dates viz., 11.07.2006. On that date, it was stated that R4 was not present, whereas the petitioner was present. Again it was adjourned to 25.07.2006 at 3.00 pm. On that date, once again R4 was not present whereas the petitioner was present. This was obviously on the ground that no notice was issued by the Commissioner to R4 and matter was kept pending. Subsequently, it was called on 12.12.2006 and 08.01.2007. It was recorded that both sides were absent. But however, in the notes file, on 08.01.2007, it was stated that R4 was called thrice. Hence, the application filed by him was dismissed for default of appearance. On the strength of these developments, the petitioner contended that the question of issuing revenue recovery notice for recovering the amount on the basis of non-existent order in W.C.No.396 of 2004 dated 08.09.2005 does not arise. Hence, the writ petition is maintainable. 9. Hence, the application filed by him was dismissed for default of appearance. On the strength of these developments, the petitioner contended that the question of issuing revenue recovery notice for recovering the amount on the basis of non-existent order in W.C.No.396 of 2004 dated 08.09.2005 does not arise. Hence, the writ petition is maintainable. 9. It is rather shocking to note that the Commissioner without any intimation to R4 can reopen a concluded case by making an endorsement on the application filed by the Management and thereafter without notice to the workman continued to call the case and after four adjournments dismissed the main W.C.case itself. This conduct of the first respondent is totally reprehensible and repugnant to any rule of law. In view of the serious miscarriage of justice to both sides, the only course open to this Court is to remit the matter for fresh disposal by another officer. 10. Under the said circumstances, W.C.Case No.396 of 2004 will stand restored on the file of the first respondent. The first respondent shall in turn give notice to both sides and proceed to decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law. The writ petition stands allowed. However, the petitioner is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost to the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. On such cost memo being filed, the matter will be heard and disposed of. If cost memo is not filed within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the 4th respondent is directed to enforce the earlier order passed by the authority. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.