PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. K. Shukla, J. This Review Application has been filed for review of judgment and order dated 23-3-2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 76863 of 2005, Praversh Kumar Sachdeva v. State of U. P. & Ors. , to the extent of directives given "petitioners as well as State Respondents are directed to ensure return back of the property in question to the private respondents forthwith. "

(2.) THIS Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 76863 of 2005, Praversh Kumar Sachdeva v. State of U. P. & Ors. , after calling for the record qua auction proceedings, which had been held, found that the said auction proceedings were nothing but an outcome of fraud and manipulation, passed the judgment and order under review, directing the State-respondents as well as petitioner to return back the property to private respondents forthwith. Against the said judgment, Special Leave to Appeal No. 83165 of 2006 had been filed before Hon'ble Apex Court by Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva, and the Hon'ble Apex Court upon hearing the Counsel for the parties has issued notice limited to the question of refund and interim stay of the direction for deposit of cots has been passed. The order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court is being quoted below : "upon hearing Counsel the Court made following ORDEr Issued limited to the question of refund. Mr. S. R. Setia, learned Counsel appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 4. Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the said respondent No. 4 states that it shall be indicated in the counter-affidavit to be filed as to why the refund as claimed shall not be granted. Issue notice to other respondents. Interim stay of the direction for deposit of costs. (Neena Verma) (Khushi Ram) Court Master Court Master"

(3.) SRI V. B. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of private respondents, on the other hand, contended that the applicants have ready contested the matter through Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva, and they are not at all bona fide purchaser for the value and the circumstances are speaking for itself, and once auction has been held to be void, then any subsequent right flowing from it also falls to the ground, and the application for review, as it has been framed and drawn, is liable to be dismissed.