RAVINDRA KUMAR Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJIV Sharma, J. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the State Counsel.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order of Board of Revenue holding the revision to have become infructuous in view of the Repeal Act No. 38 of 2005, the writ peti tion has filed the instant writ petition inter alia on the ground that the Board of Revenue fell into error in not considering the effect of the provision contained in section 6 (e) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 saving the pending proceedings under the repealed Act.

(3.) IN the case of Mohammad Talib (supra) it has been clearly held that the revision could not have been dismissed as infructuous on the promulgation of Repealing Act and the matter ought to have been decided on merit by the Board of Revenue.