ORDER : B.V. Nagarathna, J. 1. The order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 18-6-2012, passed in Misc. No. 73 of 2009 is assailed in these writ petitions. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioners herein had assailed the order of the Deputy Commissioner, cancelling the grant made to the petitioners in Appeal Nos. 645 and 657 of 2001. By judgment dated 30-9-2002 those appeals were dismissed. As against Appeal No. 657 of 2001, the petitioners herein had filed Review Petition No. 1 of 2005. By order dated 14-9-2005, the review petitions were rejected as they were held to be time barred. That order was sought to be recalled by filing an application under clause (a) of Regulation 28 of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter, referred to as "Regulations 1979"). By the impugned order dated 18-6-2012, the said application has been dismissed. That order has been assailed in these writ petitions. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. The Tribunal has dismissed the application filed under clause (a) of Regulation 28 of the Regulations 1979, which was numbered as Misc. No. 73 of 2009 by a detailed order by recording the chequered history that this case has had. The Tribunal has noted that the review petition seeking review of the order dated 14-9-2005 passed in Appeal No. 657 of 2001 was taken up on various dates and on 29-8-2008, the Tribunal heard the arguments of the Advocate for the review petitions i.e., petitioners herein on I.A. No. I, which was filed for condonation of delay and thereafter, the matter was posted for orders on I.A. No. I to 2-9-2005. As the order was not ready on that day, the matter was adjourned to 14-9-2005 and on that day, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed and consequently, the review petition was also rejected as having become barred by time. The petitioners thereafter, filed the application under clause (a) of Regulation 28 in the year 2009 which was treated as Misc. Case No. 73 of 2009. The Tribunal in my view has rightly dismissed that application. In fact, the application filed by the petitioners invoking Regulation 28(a) was not maintainable. Regulation 28(a) reads as under: "28. The petitioners thereafter, filed the application under clause (a) of Regulation 28 in the year 2009 which was treated as Misc. Case No. 73 of 2009. The Tribunal in my view has rightly dismissed that application. In fact, the application filed by the petitioners invoking Regulation 28(a) was not maintainable. Regulation 28(a) reads as under: "28. (a) Where a case is dismissed for default or on merits under Regulation 26, the appellant or petitioner may make a miscellaneous application to the Tribunal along with an affidavit within thirty days from the date of the order; and, where it is proved that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the case was called on for hearing the Tribunal shall restore the case on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit: Provided that in cases in which the respondent had already put in his appearance, an opportunity of being heard shall be afforded to him before restoration." Clause (a) of Regulation 28 speaks of two circumstances under which a case is disposed. One, is for default and the second on merits under Regulation 26. Regulation 26 reads as under: "26. If, on the date fixed for hearing or any subsequent date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant or petitioner does not appear either in person or by an agent or a pleader when the case is called on for hearing, the Bench may dismiss the same for default or decide it on merits after hearing the respondent, his agent or pleader if present: Provided that cases arising under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 shall always be decided on merits." A combined reading of the aforesaid regulations would make it clear that an application under clause (a) of Regulation 28 is maintainable only when an order is passed ex parte i.e., without hearing either of the parties and is disposed for default or on merits. In the instant case, that is not the position as the application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition was heard and the Advocate for the petitioners represented the matter. The application was rejected on 14-9-2005 and no challenge to that order was made thereafter. In the instant case, that is not the position as the application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition was heard and the Advocate for the petitioners represented the matter. The application was rejected on 14-9-2005 and no challenge to that order was made thereafter. It is only after four years that this miscellaneous case invoking clause (a) of Regulation 28 was filed, which was belated. Apart from that, the application was not at all maintainable as the order dated 14-9-2005 was not an ex parte order but one passed after hearing the Counsel for the petitioners herein. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the said application as it was not maintainable. In view of the dismissal of the application, the order dated 14-9-2005 becomes operational. In the result, the writ petitions stand dismissed.