PAWAN KUMAR MISHRA Vs. COMMISSIONER ALLAHABAD DIVISION ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Chaturvedi, Advocate, who has appeared for respondent No. 3.

(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorariquashing the order dated 19-3-2001 passed by the respondent No. 1 allowing the objection and remanding the case to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned for decision afresh on merit after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents supported the validity of the order passed by the Commissioner. It was urged that the findings recorded by the Commissioner are all findings of fact, which are based on relevant evidence on the record. It was also contended that the impugned order was passed after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Further, if the petitioner felt that he was not given an opportunity of hearing, the remedy for the petitioner was before the respondent No. 1 himself and not before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was also contended that the impugned order is an order of remand, therefore, the the writ petition against the said order is legally not maintainable.