Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Jauhari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Notices on behalf of opposite party Nos.1, 2 & 3 have been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel, while notices on behalf of opposite party Nos.4 to 10 have been accepted by Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, who has filed his Vakalatnama on their behalf, which is taken on record.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in a same appeal bearing Appeal No.1429 of 2015; Abhishek Rastogi vs. State of U.P., filed under Section 265 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, two orders are there. The petitioner has enclosed a certified copy of the order dated 29.09.2018 as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, whereas he has also enclosed the copy of order dated 26.09.2018 as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, passed in Appeal No.1429 of 2015; Abhishek Rastogi vs. State of U.P.. The perusal of both the aforesaid orders reveals that not only the date of order is different but also some reasoning of both the orders are different.
When the authority concerned has passed any order in appeal of the petitioner, the order should be one and if the two orders are available in the same matter while dismissing the appeal in question, it creates some suspicion.
Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a week's time to seek complete instructions in the matter.
List this petition on 02.11.2018 as fresh.
When the case is next listed, name of Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Advocate be printed in the cause list as counsel for the opposite parties.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]