Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Sri S.K. Tiwari has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 4.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 16.09.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Ayodhya Mandal in Case No. 00787 whereby it has admitted the Revision of the opposite party no. 4 and as an interim measure has stayed the operation of the order impugned dated 13.04.2018.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the instant revision which was preferred before the opposite party no. 2 was not maintainable, inasmuch as, it was the second revision preferred by the opposite party no. 4 and despite having raised an objection the same has not been considered..
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that though he had filed his objections yet the opposite party no. 2 has fixed the matter for 18.02.2020 and to buttress the aforesaid submission he has filed a supplementary affidavit along with which a copy of the questionnaire has been annexed indicating that the next date fixed in the revision is 18.03.2010 and it has been submitted that the proceedings before the Commissioner may be expedited.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 has opposed the aforesaid prayer and has submitted that initially under a mistaken advice the revision was preferred before the ADM (Collector) which came to be dismissed solely on the ground of jurisdiction by means of the order dated 30.03.2019, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 11 with the liberty to the opposite party no. 4 to approach the appropriate Court.
It has been submitted in light of the order dated 30.03.2019 it is the opposite party no. 4 who preferred a fresh revision which was entertained and now that the matter is pending, the petitioner shall have his right to raise all sorts of objections which can be considered by the appropriate authority.
Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and also on perusal of the record, it is clear that as far as the first relief sought by the petitioner is concerned for quashing of the order dated 16.09.2019 on the ground that this was the second revision of the opposite party no. 4 does not sound to reason in light of the fact that the earlier revision was dismissed solely on the ground of want of jurisdiction and the liberty was granted to the opposite party no. 4 to approach the appropriate court. Admittedly, the petitioner did not assail the said order and, therefore, now it is not open for him to challenge the same was to say that this is the second revision.
In light of the what has been submitted above, this Court does not find that there is any cause for the petitioner to assail the order and as such the writ petition is misconceived.
In the facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the revision is listed for 18.03.2020, the ends of justice can be met if the opposite party no. 2 is directed that it shall consider the revision on priority basis and make an endevour to decide the same on the date fixed or if not possible then within the next three months thereof.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Asheesh