UNION OF INDIA (UOI) REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER Vs. OM NARAYAN SINGH @ TUN TUN SINGH AND ESTATE OFFICER, SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Appellant.

(2.) THE exparte order dated 02.09.1993 reads as under:

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised so as to pass an order restoring illegal order resulting in perpetuality of the illegality and relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court delivered in the case of Vijay Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in : 1993 (1) PLJR 99. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Division Bench has taken the view that if setting aside of the impugned order results into restoration of the illegal order, then such order should not be passed even if the challenged order is illegal. The order which we have quoted above, on the face of it reveals that such type of order could not have been passed even in any exparte proceeding as the order passed by the Estate Officer is without application of mind and without considering the facts and has been passed following a decision given by his predecessor in one line order, not even declaring the person in possession an unauthorized occupant, but passing the order of eviction.