ASHOK KUMAR Vs. ARVIND MUKHRAIYA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission.

(2.) Learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 5 contended that against the impugned order dated 14.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner, the petitioner had a statutory alternative remedy to file proceedings before Board of Revenue. He filed a revision against impugned order on 27.12.2016. His revision was entertained and admitted which is evident from order-sheet Annexure R/2. Thereafter, he filed present petition on 10.3.2017. He did not disclose that against the same grievance and the same impugned order, his revision is pending before the Board. By suppressing aforesaid fact, he obtained ex-parte order from this court. Petitioner is guilty of suppression of material fact and for this reason alone this petition may be dismissed.

(3.) Faced with this, Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after this petition has been entertained by this court, the petitioner had already withdrawn his revision from Board of Revenue. He did not dispute that revision was filed before the Board on 27.12.2016 whereas this petition is filed on 10.3.2017. Thus, petitioner was fully aware that his revision on the same subject was pending before the Board of Revenue.