Bhaskaran, Ag. C.J.
1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dt. 9-9-1983 in Order P. No. 1153 of 1981-H which itself was for quashing Ext. P-6 order by which the petitioner's application for restoration of the appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) was dismissed. The learned Judge took the view that whether an application for restoration should be allowed or not is purely within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority, and it would not be fair on the part of this Court to interfere with such decision under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Going through the impugned order we find that the disposal by the Appellate Authority was far from satisfactory. What the Appellate Authority has stated by way of reason for dismissing the application for restoration reads as follows:--
'I have heard the counsel for the appellant and also perused the connected records. Considering all the aspects of the case, I feel that no useful purpose will be served by restoring the appeal. I also find no reason to restore it. Accordingly the petition for restoring the appeal is dismissed.'
Regarding the soundness of this reasoning, less said the better a decision cannot be based on the mere feeling of the Presiding Officer. Except for the feeling of the Presiding Officer no other reason has been given for dismissing the application for restoration of the appeal. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the approach made by the Appellate Authority is quite perverse, and the order passed by the Appellate Authority is liable to be quashed.
3. The counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the writ petition itself was not maintainable inasmuch as a revision under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act was maintainable against the impugned order and, therefore, the petitioner could not have invoked Article 226 of the Constitution for the purpose of getting the order quashed. Section 103 in so far as it is relevant for our purpose reads as follows:--
'103. Revision by High Court.-- (1) Any person aggrieved by -
(i) any final order passed in an appeal against the order of the Land Tribunal or;
(ii) any final order passed by the Land Board under this Act; or
(iii) Any final order of the Taluk Land Board under this Act may, within such time as may be prescribed, prefer a petition to the High Court against the order on the ground that the Appellate Authority or the Land Board, or the Taluk Land Board, as the case may be, has either decided erroneously, or failed to decide, any question of law.'
The submission made by Sri Rajagopalan, the counsel for respondents 2 and 3, is that the order dismissing an application for restoration of the appeal which has already been dismissed amounts to a final order passed in an appeal and, therefore, was amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 103 of the Act. From the facts disclosed we find that the appeal had already been dismissed for default as early as on 12-12-1978, and that what was dismissed under the impugned order was only an application for restoration of the appeal. We do not think that there is any justification for taking a view that the provision for revision would take in cases of this nature in which the impugned order is passed after the final disposal of the appeal. We are, therefore, of the opinion that as against an order dismissing an application for restoration of the appeal no revision under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act would lie; and in that view the objection raised by the counsel for respondents 2 and 3 contending that the petitioner was not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court without exhausting the statutory remedies, could not be upheld.
4. The order impugned discloses that the counsel for the appellant was not present at the time when the case was called out for hearing. No arrangement had been made by the petitioner for making any representation to the Court. In any event, on account of the failure On the part of the counsel for the appellant to be present at the time of hearing, respondents 2 and 3 had been put to great inconvenience, unnecessary expenses and delay in the matter of disposal of the case. Taking all these facts and circumstances into account, we quash Ext. P-6 impugned in the writ petition on condition that by way of costs the appellant/petitioner would pay to the counsel for respondents 2 and 3 appearing in this Court a sum of Rs. 250/- (Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) within one month from today, failing which event the writ appeal shall stand dismissed. We make it clear that we have not pronounced anything on the merits of the application for restoration of the appeal; and the direction to the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) is to take it back on file, and dispose it of on merits.
The writ appeal is disposed of in terms of the above directions setting aside the judgment under appeal. There will be no order as to costs.
Carbon copy of the judgment may begranted to the counsel on both sides onusual terms if applied for in that behalfAppeal disposed ofaccordingly.