RAM SAHU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Agarwal, J. Heard learned Counsel for 'he applicant and learned Counsel for opposite party.

(2.) THIS Criminal Revision, filed by Sri Ram Sahu, was Decided by this Court final ly on 7-11-1997. An application has been moved on behalf of opposite party No. 2, Ayodhya Prasad, along with an affidavit for recalling the above said order of this Court on the ground that the applicant, Rain Sahu, had expired long before the decision of this revision by this Court. He had ex pired, according to the information con veyed, on 26-1-1986, meaning thereby that soon after filing of this revision the ap plicant had expired.

(3.) SO far as recall of the order is concerned, I see no merit in this applica tion. This order came to be passed as a result of non-appearance of the Counsel for the present applicant in this applica tion for recalling the order. Therefore, no blame can be Laid at the door of this Court. However, learned Counsel for the ap plicant, Ayodhya Prasad (opposite party No. 2 in the revision), informs that presently there is no dispute between the parties. This he says on account of a decision made by the authorizes con cerned in his favour. But he is not able to disclose whether those orders have already been challenged in a writ petition by the other side before this Court or not. In absence of such an information it will not be safe to make any observation with regard to this aspect even. However, bear ing in mind the welfare of the students, if brought to the notice of the learned S. D. M. that there exists no apprehension of breach of peace then the learned Magistrate is free to act upon and proceed in accordance with law and pass suitable ancillary orders.