ROOP KISHORE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against an order of the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 17.11.2008 whereby he has recalled his earlier order dated 17.01.2008. Facts relevant for deciding the controversy are: Petitioners before this court made an application under Section 47 of the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1975 for the purposes of raising construction over the land said to be the property of the writ petitioner. The lay out plan submitted by the petitioners was rejected by the Secretary of the Development Authority. Not being satisfied with the order the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 15(5) of the Urban Planning & Development Act. The Commissioner after hearing the petitioner and the District Prosecution Officer proceeded to allow the appeal on 17.01.2008. The Development Authority filed an application for the order dated 17.01.2008 being reconsidered basically on the ground that the order has been passed without notice and opportunity of hearing to the Development Authority. THIS application has been allowed after recording a finding that the earlier order was passed ex parte. The order is being questioned on the three grounds : a. That the Prosecution Officer was heard before passing of the order. b. The Commissioner has no power to review. c. The review application was time barred and no explanation was given for the delay. In the opinion of the Court, all the three grounds raised are misconceived. So far as the first ground is concerned, this Court is satisfied that there is no material on record which can establish that the District Prosecution Officer was authorized to represent the development authority before the Commissioner and, therefore, he cannot represent the Development Authority. Therefore, the order dated 17.01.2008 was ex parte to the Development Authority. So far as the plea raised qua the Commissioner having no power to review is concerned, this Court may only record that the word review has wrongly been used in order under challenge, in fact the earlier order has been recalled. Every authority has inherent jurisdiction to recall an order if the same has been passed in absence of notice to the contesting party. With regard to the delay in filing of the recall application it is apparent that order dated 17.01.2008 was ex parte and the Development Authority filed the application as soon as it was made aware of the ex parte order. All the three grounds are rejected. Even otherwise this Court may record that the orders which are passed in the interest of substantial justice for permitting an opportunity of hearing to the contesting party need, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution inasmuch as all Court of law are constituted for furtherance of interest of justice and not for obstruct the same on technicalities. For this ground also the writ petition is dismissed. The Commissioner is directed to decide the appeal afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Commissioner. Writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made herein above.