RAJENDRA PRASAD MAURYA Vs. M P HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition seeking review of the order dated 20.8.2014, passed in WP No. 3657/2010. Shri Deepak Khot, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the counsel for the Board in the proceedings of writ petition, made a statement that the petitioner has an alternative remedy. The counsel appearing for the present petitioner at that point of time did not realise that such remedy is not available to him, showed his intention to prefer an appeal.

(2.) THE bone of contention of Shri Khot is that the appellate remedy under section 57 of the M.P.Griha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972 (for brevity, the 'Act') is available only when the competent authority has passed any order under section 55 or 56 of the Act. By taking this Court to Annexure P/1(A) with writ petition, it is contended that no order is passed by the competent authority under section 55(1) and (5) of the Act. He submits that the documents filed along with the return of writ petition are manufactured documents. On the strength of this, it is submitted that since no order is passed under section 55(1) and (5) of the Act, the appellate remedy under section 57 is not available to him. Thus, the order needs to be reviewed/recalled and writ petition is required to be heard on its own merits by the writ court.

(3.) PER Contra, Shri M.K.Jain, learned counsel for the Board submits that the orders are very much passed under section 55 of the Act, which are appealable. There is no error apparent on the face of record, which is required to be reviewed. By taking this Court to a Division Bench order passed in Writ Appeal No. 518/2013 (State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Smt. Gulshan Parasar), it is submitted that even Division Bench, in similar circumstances, passed similar order. Lastly, on the strength of (State of H.P. vs. Raja Mahendra Pal and others, 1999 4 SCC 43) and (State of Bihar and others vs. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd, 2002 1 SCC 216), it is contended that review is not warranted in this matter.