Through this Intra-Court Appeal, the appellant has challenged order dated 12.08.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in Chamber in Writ Petition No,5179/2015 which was disposed of in view of undertaking given by Manger, Bank of Punjab Vehari Branch/respondent No,3 in writ petition that the vehicle/Suzuki Bolan would be handed over to the writ petitioner within a period of ten days.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. The only contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the Manager/respondent No,3 in the writ petition was not competent to make the statement as noted in para 1 above as the Self Employment Scheme for Education Unemployed Youth (THESEUS) whereby the vehicles were being supplied had already closed which fact was communicated to all Unit Managers, Consumer Finance Centre, The Bank of Punjab vide circular No,HO/RFD/2012/4335 dated 20.11.2012.
4. Scanning of record reveals that in the writ petition, wherein this ICA has been instituted, the notices were issued to the respondents on 08.04.2015. On 27.07.2015, learned Law Officer sought time to file report and parawise comments upon which the case was fixed for 06.08.2015 when respondents Nos.2 and 3 were directed to appear in person on 12.08.2015. On the said date, respondent No,3 appeared before the Court and gave the undertaking in dispute. This shows that the appellants (respondents in the writ petition) were not given proper opportunity to contest the writ petition nor the report and para wise comments were awaited nor proper hearing was given to them and simply on the undertaking given by the Manager, the writ petition was disposed of.
Furthermore, the Manager, Bank of Punjab Branch Vehari though was respondent in the writ petition but he does not seem to be authorized by the appellants to give the disputed undertaking.
Furthermore, the appellants have produced official documents No,B0P/CFC/MLT/36 dated 10.09.2015 and No,B0P/VRI/2015/90 dated 14.09.2015 which reflect that Show Cause Notice was issued regarding the matter in hand to the said Manager who in reply has sought unconditional apology for giving the disputed undertaking while submitting that his appearance before the court was only in obedience of the Court and nothing else.
5. For what has been discussed above, learned Single Judge has erred in law while passing the impugned order. Reluctantly, this ICA is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to learned Single Judge for decision afresh, strictly in accordance with law.