NOUSHAD ALI Vs. PIYAR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal arises out of the judgment and order dtd. 26/4/2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No. 125/2023 instituted by the respondent No. 1 herein as review petitioner. By the order dtd. 26/4/2024, the learned Single Judge has not only allowed the review application but has also dismissed the writ petition itself filed by the appellant, which was earlier allowed by the judgment and order dtd. 12/10/2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3053/2022. It appears from the materials available on record that the appellant herein had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 3053/2022 assailing the order dtd. 7/4/2022 by means of which, Durgamari VDP was constituted with the respondent No. 1 as its Secretary.

(2.) The case of the writ appellant in the writ petition, in a nutshell, is that he is qualified and experienced for being appointed as Secretary of the VDP and in a general meeting of villagers, held on 27/2/2022, it was resolved that the allegations brought against the writ petitioner were not correct and therefore, he was expecting to be appointed as the Secretary of the Durgamari VDP. The Officer-in-Charge and the In-Charge of the concerned Police Station, who were also present in the meeting, after considering the candidature of as many as two candidates, had also selected the writ petitioner for the post of Secretary of the VDP. However, by the communication dtd. 7/4/2022, the Superintendent of Police of Bongaigaon district had appointed the respondent No. 1 (respondent No. 5 in the writ petition) as the Secretary of the Durgamari VDP. Aggrieved by the order dtd. 7/4/2022, the present appellant had filed W.P.(C) No. 3053/2022.

(3.) By the judgment and order dtd. 12/10/2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3053/2022, the learned Single Judge had interfered with the communication dtd. 7/4/2022 and had also issued a direction to constitute the VDP with the writ appellant/ writ petitioner as its Secretary. Consequent to the aforesaid direction, the writ appellant was appointed as the Secretary of the VDP. It was only thereafter, that the respondent No. 1 had approached this Court by filing the Review Petition No. 125/2023, inter alia, contending that the writ petitioner had suppressed material facts inasmuch as the projections made in the writ petition were entirely erroneous. Therefore, the judgment and order dtd. 12/10/2023 deserves to be reviewed/ recalled.