ANOKHEY SINGH Vs. D D C, BADAUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri R.P.S. Chauhan for the petitioner.

(2.) THE Stamp Reporter has reported that the writ petition has been filed with an inordinate delay of 3 years and 376 days. By the impugned order, the revision filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed. It is not clear as to which of the revisions has been dismissed.

(3.) THE petitioner has not taken any clear stand as to whether the order dated 20.7.2009 was passed in their presence or in their default. However, the petitioner has made allegation in the writ petition that arguments were heard by respondent -1 on 28.4.2006 but by the order dated 20.7.2009, revision was dismissed for want of prosecution. Thus it is not clear as to whether restoration application has been dismissed or revision has been dismissed. In these circumstances, it will be appropriate that the petitioner may move an application for recalling the aforesaid order before the Deputy Director of Consolidation giving the entire facts and circumstances in which the order dated 20.7.2009 has been passed. In case any such application is filed by the petitioner within two weeks from today, it shall be decided on merit in accordance with law, within a period of three months thereafter. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.