SURAJBHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come up praying for quashing of the order dated 6.9.2011 passed by the Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar, refusing to entertain the restoration application of the petitioner for correction/rectification of the order dated 7.4.1993 on the ground that the correction sought is time barred, and secondly in view of the orders passed by the High Court and the Apex Court, the Collector will have no authority to carry out corrections in the order dated 7.4.1993 which was subject matter of controversy before the said Courts and has been affirmed.

(2.) THE petitioner has further prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's application dated 22.2.1995 which had been filed for rectification of the order dated 7.4.1993 in terms of the directions of the High Court dated 22.9.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 31741 of 1998 as referred to in the letter of the State Government dated 13.5.2011.

(3.) THE matter was adjourned on the request of Sri S.G. Hasnain, learned Addl. Advocate General, who made a request on 18.10.2011 on behalf of the District Magistrate/Collector for filing an Affidavit in response to the aforesaid order. Today when the matter was taken up, a short counter affidavit has been filed sworn by Sri Satish Shukla, Tehsildar Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, on behalf of the District Magistrate. Sri S.D. Kautilya, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the said short counter affidavit only narrates facts and proceeds to defend the impugned order on the pretext that the Collector cannot pass an order of any rectification or correction of the order dated 7.4.1993, which has been upheld up to the Supreme Court. This pretext in the submission of Sri Kautilya is a cloak to avoid decision in the matter as the Collector appears to be apprehending violation of the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court or in the alternative is unable to cater to the directions issued by the State Government.