Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dulheram Meena Son Of Shri Ramswaroop ... vs Appolo Animal Medical Group Trust ... on 2 June, 2023
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2023/RJJP/012423]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 202/2019
Dulheram Meena Son Of Shri Ramswaroop Meena, Aged About
56 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 17, Durga Vihar, Sector No. 3,
Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Review Petitioner/respondent No.3
Versus
1. Appolo Animal Medical Group Trust Jamdoli, Agra Road,
Jaipur., Through Founder (Alleged) Trustee Dr. Raj Ishwar
D Khare Son Of Late Shree Durga Dayal Khare, R/o 1728.
W. Cheletenham Ave, Philadelphia, Pa. 19126 Usa
Presently Residing At Guest House, Apollo College Of
Veterinary Medicine, Village-Jamdoli, Agra Road, Jaipur
(Raj.).
...Respondent/petitioner
2. Assistant Commissioner-1st, Devasthan Department,
Jaipur, Opposite Hawamahal, Ramchandra Ji Temple,
Jaipur (Raj.).
...Respondent No.1
3. Dr. Srinivasan Ramanathan S/o Shri Kuppuswami, Aged
About 61 Years, (Alleged) Trustee Apollo Animal Medical
Group Trust, The Then R/o 43, Arihant Nagar, Jamdoli,
Agra Road, Jaipur.
...Respondent No.2
4. Shakuntala Devi Wife Shree Ramavtar Meena, Aged
About 41 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 5-H 173, Indira
Gandhi Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondent No.4
AND
S.B. Civil Review Petition No.192/2019
Shakuntala Devi Wife Shree Ramavtar Meena, Aged About 41
Years, Resident Of Plot No. 5-H 173, Indira Gandhi Nagar,
Jagatpura, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust, Jamdoli, Agra Road,
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM)
[2023/RJJP/012423] (2 of 35) [WRW-202/2019]
Jaipur Through Founder (Alleged) Trustee Dr. Raj Ishwar
D Khare Son Of Late Shree Durga Dayal Khare, R/o
1728. W. Cheletenham Ave, Philadelphia, Pa. 19126 Usa
Presently Residing At Guest House, Apollo College Of
Veterinary Medicine, Village-Jamdoli, Agra Road, Jaipur
(Raj.).
...Respondent-Petitioner
2. Assistant Commissioner-1St, Devasthan Department,
Jaipur, Opposite Hawamahal, Ramchandra Ji Temple,
Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Dr. Srinivasan Ramanathan S/o Shri Kuppuswami, Aged
About 61 Years, (Alleged) Trustee Apollo Animal Medical
Group Trust, The Then R/o 43, Arihant Nagar, Jamdoli,
Agra Road, Jaipur.
4. Dulheram Meena Son Of Shri Ramswaroop Meena, Aged
About 50 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 17, Durga Vihar,
Sector No. 3, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Surabhi Agarwal
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Gupta
Ms. Pallavi Mehta
Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Ms. Beena
Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.P.Sharma
Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora
Mr. Mahesh Chand Gupta
Mr. Gajanand Mishra, AGC
Mr. Shailesh Sharma, Addl. GC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Judgment / Order
Reserved on ::: 18.05.2023
Pronounced on ::: 02.06.2023
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM)
[2023/RJJP/012423] (3 of 35) [WRW-202/2019]
1. Since both the review petitions arise out of the
same order, hence, they are being decided by this common
order.
2. The material facts for consideration of both the
review petitions are that a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.9327/2019 was filed in the name of Apollo Animal
Medical Group Trust, Jamdoli through its Founder Trustee Dr.
Raj Ishwar D Khare on 21.05.2019 with the following prayer:-
"Your humble petitioner most respectfully prayed that
impugned order dated 25.03.2019 passed in Case
No.1/2019 titled Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust
section 24 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 be
quashed and set aside and be pleased to grant
interim relief with regard to execution and operation
of order dated 07.06.2013 passed in case No.19/2013
titled Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust section 23
Rajasthan Public Trust Act 1959 till decision of
aforesaid case No.1/2019 titled.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
may also be issued in favour of the petitioner."
3. This Court on hearing of counsel for the petitioner
issued notices of the writ petition to the respondents vide order dated 24.05.2019, which was made returnable on 4.7.2019 and as an interim relief, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 07.06.2013 so also further proceedings on an application under Section 24 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act of 1959') were stayed. On filing of the notices by the petitioner, same were issued by the Office on 29.05.2019. The notices of writ (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (4 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] petition to respondent No.2 were served on 27.06.2019 and the notices of respondent No.4 were also served on 28.06.2019. The notices of respondent No.3 was served on 14.06.2019, though Vakalatnama was submitted on his behalf on 29.05.2019. There is no report of service of notice upon the respondent No.1 whose inaction for passing any order for interim relief on 25.03.2019 is under challenge in the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner.
4. The respondent No.2 (in writ petition) filed an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of ex-parte interim order dated 24.05.2019. However, the matter was heard finally in absence of respondents No.1,2 and 4 and after conclusion of the arguments, the matter was closed for orders and on 12.07.2019 this Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders dated 07.06.2013 and 25.03.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner(I), Devsthan Department, Jaipur.
5. Before proceedings with the main arguments on the merits and demerits of both the review petitions, this Court would like to decide the issue 'Whether this Court can hear and decide the review petitions against the order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the other Judge?", because the counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner has raised an issue that when a remedy of appeal is available to the review petitioners, the review petitions in connection with the order (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (5 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] passed by one Judge, should not be heard and decided by other Judge?
6. As stated above, the notices were issued in the writ petition on 24.05.2019 and without appearance of the affected persons i.e. the respondents No.1,2 and 4, the writ petition was heard on 4.7.2019 when it was listed for orders on an application filed by the respondent No.2 under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and arguments were closed and the judgment was reserved. Finally, the order was passed on 12.07.2019, on the day the Hon'ble Judge who passed the order under consideration in both the review petitions retired. In such circumstances, it was not possible to place both the review petitions before the same Judge as the learned Judge who passed the order dated 12.07.2019 stood retired on the very same day.
It is also pertinent to mention here that Rule 64 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, clearly provides that a review application can be placed before the other Judge, if the same Judge who passed the order which is under consideration in the review petition, is not available.
It is also worthy to mention here that this Court on 31.03.2021 after considering various judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court held that the review petitions would be maintainable and it has to be heard on merits. Para 14 of the (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (6 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] order dated 31.03.2021 is quoted as under for ready reference:-
"14. Admittedly, in the present cases as noticed above, the review petitions were filed before appeal was preferred. In view thereof and in view of the reiteration of law as laid down in Kunhayammed & ors. (supra) and again in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. & Ors. (supra), this Court holds that the review petitions would be maintainable and it has to be heard on merits."
7. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the contention of the counsel appearing for the respondent / petitioner that the review petitions could not heard on merits by this Court, is not acceptable.
8. An application No.4/2019 was filed by the review petitioner under Order 47 Rule 8 CPC for considering and hearing the writ petition along-with the review applications.
On hearing of the review petitions, this Court deems just and proper to consider the pleadings and the prayer made in the writ petition at the stage of hearing of the review petitions because the observations and the findings on being exposed, may prejudice the case of either of the party. Hence, the application filed by the review petitioner under Order 47 Rule 8 CPC is allowed.
Review Petition No.202/2019:
9. The first and foremost ground of the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner in review petition No.202/2019 is that the learned writ Court while deciding the (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (7 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] writ petition No.9327/2019 committed an error apparent on the face of record that while quashing the order dated 7.6.2013 which was not a relief sort for and thus, the learned writ Court tried beyond the scope of writ petition while passing the order dated 12.07.2019. In support of his submissions, counsel appearing for the review petitioner has placed reliance upon following judgment:-
1. S.R.S. Advertising & Marketing Vs. Dr. Kamal Garg & Anr., reported in AIR 1953 SC 23;
2. Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos & Anr. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanastus and others, reported in 1954 SC 526;
3. M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1372;
4. Nathu Yeshwantrao Bhusari Vs. Sonabai Wd/o Jagannath Ganar & Ors., delivered by Bombay High Court, reported in (1994) 96 BOMLR 397; and
5. Akella Lalitha Vs. Konda Hanumantha Rao, delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 28.07.2022 in Civil Appeal Nos.
6325-6326 of 2015.
The second submission made by the learned counsel for the review petitioner is that in the pleadings made in para 14 of the writ petition, the petitioner has mentioned about the pendency of the suit No.56/2013 and the application of transposition therein by Dr. Raj Ishwar D. Khare- the writ petitioner. But the petitioner intentionally did not file the said documents, which have now been taken on record while allowing the application No.1/2019. Thus, the writ Court committed a serious error apparent on the face of (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (8 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] record ignoring the fact of pendency of civil proceedings in respect of order dated 07.06.2013 as the writ petitioner was having more effective statutory remedy in the nature of suit under section 22 of the Act of 1959.
The third ground submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner is that vide order dated 25.03.2019, which was under challenge in the writ petition, speaks that Appeal No.42/2013 against the order dated 07.06.2013 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (I), Devsthan Department, Jaipur, has been merged in the order dated 24.09.2018. Therefore, while setting aside the order dated 07.06.2013 and the writ Court ignored the order dated 24.09.2018. Counsel also submitted that the writ Court made an error apparent on the face of record while framing a question for its consideration as to "Whether Dr. Srinivasan Ramanathan was a Managing Trustee or not when he moved application under Section 23 of the Act of 1959?." Though there was no such pleading in the writ petition. He further submitted that the question before the writ Court was only "Whether the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan was having jurisdiction to grant interim relief in favour of the applicant /petitioner on his application under Section 24 of the Act of 1959 or not?." It was argued that it was an error apparent on the face of record when the writ Court did not consider that the order dated 07.06.2013 has been passed on the basis of (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (9 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] the Resolution dated 11.04.2013 to which Dr. Raj Ishwar D. Khare was also a signatory and Dr. Srinivasan Ramanathan moved an application under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 as a Managing Trustee because by the Resolution dated 11.07.2010 Dr. Srinivasan Ramanathan was appointed as a Managing Trustee. In support of his submissions, counsel appearing for the review petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
1. Chembur Trombay Education Vs. D.K. Marathe & Ors., delivered by the Bombay High Court, reported in 2002 (3) Bom CR 161;
2. Managing Committee Khalsa, Middle School & Anr. Vs. Mohinder Kaur (Smt.) & Anr., reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC
26.
Counsel appearing for the review petitioner also submitted that the writ Court while passing the order dated 12.07.2019 decided the issue of Managing Trustee solely on the basis of the order dated 03.12.2012 which was set aside by the Commissioner, Devsthan on 21.02.2013 in Appeal No.4/2013. He also argued that the petitioner neither filed the order dated 21.02.2013 nor the order dated 24.09.2018 and the fact of filing separate writ petition No.16134/2019 for revival of the order dated 03.12.2012. He also submitted that on the date of disposal of the writ petition, the order dated 03.12.2012 was not in effect.
Counsel appearing for the review petitioner also submitted that the learned writ Court while deciding the writ (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (10 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] petition did not take into consideration the material fact that the question of validity of the order dated 07.06.2013 on an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1959 was still pending and there was no any pleadings in the writ petition against the validity and challenge to the order dated 07.06.2013 and the review petitioner was not allowed proper opportunity to defend his case and thus there was violation of principles of natural justice which is an error apparent on the face of record.
Counsel appearing for the review petitioner also raised a ground that the learned writ Court also committed an error apparent on the face of record observing that the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan has lack of jurisdiction. He submitted that the proceedings pending under Section 24 of the Act of 1959 in which the order dated 25.03.2019, under challenge in the writ petition, was passed, were instituted on the application of Dr. Raj Ishwar D Khare.
Counsel appearing for the review petitioner also raised an issue that the proceedings under section 23 of the Act of 1959 are completely different from the proceedings under Section 38 of the Act of 1959. He further submitted that as far as proceedings under Sections 38 and 39 of the Act of 1959 are concerned, the applications filed by Dr. Raj Ishwar D. Khare have been dismissed and the writ petition No.15008/2021 is still pending. In support of his submissions, (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (11 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of Shri Sonana Khetlaji Trust Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., delivered on 24.04.2017 by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4399/2016.
Counsel appearing for the review petitioner also raised an issue that S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9328/2018, was also decided by the same order dated 12.07.2019 which is under consideration in the present review petition. The said review petition No.206/2019 filed by the present review petitioner was allowed and the order dated 12.07.2019 was recalled to the extent of Writ Petition No. 9328/2019, as it was passed without reasons and in contravention of principles of natural justice which is an error apparent on the face of the record.
10. Counsel appearing for the respondent /petitioner opposed the review petition and enlightened the Court in regard to the scope of the review petition and submitted that the Court has to see that, what is the extent of the review jurisdiction in a review petition?. Whether the lack of jurisdiction would render the whole proceedings void?. Whether a Court can exceed the relief sought in a petition and issue appropriate orders by moulding the relief?. Whether the order passed could be invalidated in a collateral proceeding?, and Whether Review Court can entertain, subsequent documents came in existence after passing (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (12 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] judgment by the Court?. He submitted that none of the grounds of the review petition have been pleaded by the review petitioner in the review petition which could be the scope and ambit of the provisions of review enshrined under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In support of his arguments with regard to the scope of review petition, he has relied upon following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:-
1. Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 78;
2. Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320;
3. Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd., reported in (2013) 8 SCC 337;
4. Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170;
5. Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389;
6. Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61,
7. Parison Devi v. Sumitri Devi, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715,
8. S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan and Ors., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185;
9. Shri Brajraj Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Raj. 1763;
10. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation v. Kedarnath Singh Mandele & Ors., reported in 2022 (3) JabLJ 161;
11. M/s. S.A. Infrastructure Consultants Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Raj. 8333.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (13 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] Counsel appearing for the respondent/ petitioner further submitted that the absence of jurisdiction would render the whole proceedings null and void. He argued that the writ Court has granted relief vide order dated 12.07.2019 by quashing the order dated 07.06.2013, even though no such relief was claimed by the writ petitioner and the order dated 07.06.2013 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (I), Devsthan was without jurisdiction. The writ Court quashed and set aside the order dated 07.06.2013 in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the same was without jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner (I), Devsthan Department. In support of his submissions, counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
1. Mahant Dilipdas v. Murti Mandir bidawatji; reported in (2014) 3 WLC (Raj.) 759;
2. Vagaram v. Vardaram; reported in (2014) 2 WLC 139;
3. Amrit Bhikhaji Kale & Ors. v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade & Anr.; reported in (1983) 3 SCC 437; and
4. Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh & Ors., reported in (1993) 2 SCC 507.
Counsel appearing for the respondent/ petitioner also argued that the relief can be moulded by the High Court as it has wide discretion to grant appropriate relief by molding the relief. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon following judgments:- (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM)
[2023/RJJP/012423] (14 of 35) [WRW-202/2019]
1. Mujahid Ahmed v. State of Telangana & Anr.: reported in 2022 (1) ALT (Crl.) 122;
2. Neeraj Kumar v. Chief Education Officer and Others;
Special Appeal No.263 of 2021;
3. State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. S.C. Agarwal & Ors., reported in 1998 SCC OnLine Guj. 97;
4. Nirmala Rawendra Gupta v. Rawendra Kumar, reported in 1996 SCC Online MP 52; and
5. Smitha M.G. v. State of Kerala & Ors., (27.07.2022- KERHC): MANU/KE/2360/2022.
Counsel appearing for the respondent / petitioner also submitted that since the order dated 07.06.2013 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (I), Devsthan, being without jurisdiction, was rightly quashed by the learned writ Court as the orders without jurisdiction can be struck down in collateral proceedings. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon following judgments:-
1. Jaipur Development Authority v. Mahesh Sharma, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 782;
2. Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, reported in (1995) 1 SCR 117; and
3. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., reported in (2019) 17 SCC 82.
Counsel appearing for the respondent /petitioner also submitted that the contention of the counsel appearing for the review petitioner that no proper opportunity of hearing has been given to the review petitioner, is without merit as the matter was finally heard with the consent of the counsel appearing for the review petitioner. He also submitted (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (15 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] that the review petitioner is not entitled to raise any other new point which has not been pleaded in the reply to the writ petition.
11. In the rejoinder, counsel appearing for the review petitioner submitted that the learned writ Court while passing the order dated 12.07.2019 and allowing / disposing of the writ petition held that the order dated 07.06.2013 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (I), Devsthan Department, is without jurisdiction observing that the application submitted for change in the entries of the Trust has not been submitted by the Managing /Working Trustee. He further submitted that there were no pleadings in the writ petition on this issue and therefore, there was no occasion to file a detailed reply in regard to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner (I), Devsthan Department, detailing the factual matrix in regard to passing of the order dated 07.06.2013 and the proceedings in regard to the appointment and approval of Dr. Srinivasan Ramanathan as the Managing Trustee. The application was submitted by Dr. Srinivasan Ramanathan on which the order dated 07.06.2013 was passed and at the time of submitting the application Dr. Srinivasan Ramanathan was the Managing Trustee. By the Resolution dated 11.07.2020 Dr. Srinivasan Ramanathan has been appointed as a Managing Trustee and the respondent/ petitioner filed writ petition No18550/2019 in that regard which was (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (16 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] subsequently withdrawn by him to file an appeal before the Commissioner, Devsthan Department. He also submitted that the proceedings under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 are totally different and separate from the proceedings under Section 38 of the Act of 1959. He also submitted that no proper opportunity was allowed to the review petitioner to defend his case on facts and law in regard to the validity of the order dated 07.06.2013 because neither there were pleadings in the writ petition nor any material fact and the documents related to the proceedings before the subordinate authorities were placed on record by the respondent/ petitioner. Therefore, an error apparent on the face of record has occurred by passing the order dated 12.07.2019 by the writ Court without there being pleadings and opportunity to defend to opposite party.
Review Petition No.192/2019:
12. Counsel appearing for the review petitioner- Shakuntala Devi submitted that he is adopting the detailed submissions made by the counsel appearing for the review petitioner in Review Petition No.202/2019 but he additionally submitted that the order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the writ Court is contrary to the principles of natural justice. He submitted that the notices of the writ petition were issued by this Court on 24.05.2019 which was served upon her on 28.06.2019 for appearance on 04.07.2019. Before the (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (17 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] Vakalatnama could be filed for review petitioner, who is respondent No.4 in the writ petition, the petition was finally heard on 04.07.2019 and the order was reserved which was pronounced on 12.07.2019. He further submitted that the order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the writ Court is violative of principles of natural justice as no proper opportunity to defend the case was allowed to the review petitioner.
13. The factual matrix in regard to issuance of the notice, date of service upon the review petitioner, who is respondent No.4 in the writ petition, date of filing of the writ petition and passing of the order dated 12.07.2019, cannot be disputed by one party being the matter of record.
14. Heard and considered the rival submissions made by counsels appearing for the respective parties.
15. The review petitioners have raised various grounds in support of seeking reviewing of the order dated 12.07.2019. Counsel appearing for the respondent /petitioner citing several judgments has raised an issue that the Court has to go strictly with the laws including the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and further submitted that in review no fresh and further inquiry can be made appreciating the material available on the record and further argued that only in case the Court comes to the conclusion that there is an error apparent on the face of the record then only interference can be made in the review petitions. Counsel (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (18 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] appearing for the respondent /petitioner has cited several judgments as noted in his arguments stated above. The grounds for maintainability and non-maintainability of the review petition have been summarized in para 20.2 in the case of Kamlesh Verma (supra). Para 20.2 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-
"20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."
16. There is no conflict in regard to the principles summarized for the maintainability and non- maintainability of the review petition as quoted above. Now this Court has to see the facts of the present case which speak of an error apparent on the face of record and other grounds for maintainability of the present review petitions. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (19 of 35) [WRW-202/2019]
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Haridas Das (supra), has observed as under:-
"13. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharmal, [(1979) 4 SCC 389: AIR 1979 SC 1047] speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the following pertinent observations:
"It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.'
15. A perusal of the Order XLVII, Rule 1 show that review of a judgment or an order could be sought :
(a) from the discovery of new and important matters or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant; (b) such important matter or evidence could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the decree was passed or order made; and (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (20 of 35) [WRW-202/2019]
(c) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient reason.
16. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma (AIR 1979 SC 1047) this Court held that there are definite limits to the exercise of power of review. In that case, an application under Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code was filed which was allowed and the order passed by the judicial Commissioner was set aside and the writ petition was dismissed. On an appeal to this Court it was held as under:
"It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC1908) there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inherest in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court."
17. The judgment in Aribam's case (supra) has been followed in the case of Smt. Meera Bhanja (supra). In that case, it has been reiterated that an error apparent on the face of the record for acquiring jurisdiction to review must be such an error which may strike one on a mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning. The following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (21 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tiruymale [ AIR 1960 SC 137] were also noted:
"An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior Court to issue such a writ."
18. It is also pertinent to mention the observations of this Court in the case of Parsion Devi v. Sumiri Devi (1997(8) SCC 715). Relying upon the judgments in the cases of Aribam's (supra) and Smt. Meera Bhanja (supra) it was observed as under :
"9. Under Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia, if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise."
20. When the aforesaid principles are applied to the background facts of the present case, the position is clear that the High Court had clearly fallen in error in accepting the prayer for review. First, the crucial question which according to the High Court was necessary to be adjudicated was the question whether the Title Suit No. 201 of 1985 was barred by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC. This question arose in Title Suit No.1 of 1986 and was irrelevant so far as Title Suit No.2 of 1987 is concerned. Additionally, the High Court erred in holding that no prayer for leave under Order II Rule 2 CPC was made in the plaint in Title Suit No.201 of 1985. The claim of oral agreement dated 19.8.1982 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (22 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] is mentioned in para 7 of the plaint, and at the end of the plaint it has been noted that right to institute suit for specific performance was reserved. That being so the High Court has erroneously held about infraction of Order II Rule 2 CPC. This was not a case where Order II of Rule 2 CPC has any application."
18. Relying upon the judgments cited by the counsel appearing for the respondent /petitioner, this Court finds that the power of review can be exercised for correction of mistake/s but not to substitute a view and the same can be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the face of record is found and the power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. The power of review can also be exercised by the Court in the event of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge or could not be produced by the review petitioner at the time when the order was made, as has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Shri Brajraj Singh & Others (supra).
19. On perusal of the contents of the writ petition and the prayer made therein, it is very much clear that neither there was any prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 07.06.2013 nor there were any pleadings in regard to the validity of the said order. In the writ petition, the prayer was made only to the effect that in the proceedings before the (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (23 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan, initiated on the application of Dr. Raj Ishwar D. Khare, the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan, declined to pass an interim order observing that he has no such jurisdiction to grant any interim relief. The notices of the writ petition were issued to the respondent/ review petitioner and the other respondents in the writ petition on 24.05.2019, which were made returnable on 4.7.2019. The notices of the writ petition were not even served to the respondent No.1 whose order dated 25.03.2019 of not granting interim order was under
challenge. The notices of writ petition to respondent No.2 were also not served and the notices of respondent No.4 was served on 28.06.2019 and before she could put appearance and place her defence, the matter was finally heard on 04.07.2019 reserved the order which was pronounced on 12.07.2019. The aforesaid facts clearly speak that no proper opportunity was given to the respondents in the writ petition including the authority whose order was under challenge, to defend the case before passing the order dated 12.07.2019.
Deciding the writ petition finally at orders stage stating consent of one of the respondent cannot be said to be the consent of all the parties to the writ petition. Hence, an error apparent on the face of record, has occurred by not providing proper opportunity to the respondents in the writ petition to defend their case more particularly the respondent- Assistant (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (24 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] Commissioner, whose order dated 07.06.2013 which was not even under challenge but quashed.
20. In the writ petition the prayer was made to challenge the order dated 25.03.2019 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan of not granting interim relief to Dr. Raj Ishwar D. Khare on his application under Section 23 of the Act of 1959. There was no prayer in the writ petition for quashing and setting aside the order dated 07.06.2013 but the prayer was made to stay the operation of the order dated 07.06.2013 till the disposal of the application No.1/2019 filed by the petitioner pending before the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan. In the body of the writ petition, there were no facts and grounds about the illegality and validity of the order dated 07.06.2013. Since no facts and grounds were raised in the writ petition in regard to the illegality and validity of the order dated 07.06.2013, there was no occasion for the review petitioners to make submissions to satisfy the Court in regard to the jurisdictional validity of the order dated 07.06.2013. Any decision of the Court beyond pleadings and arguments and granting a relief not prayed for, tantamount to an error apparent on the face of the record.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of S.R.S. Advertising & Marketing (supra) in para 3 has observed as under:-
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM)
[2023/RJJP/012423] (25 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] "3. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned judgment and order. 3.1 Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that the same passed by the High Court is unsustainable. 3.2 The High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that what was challenged before it was regarding nongrant of any interim relief pending the appeal before the DRAT.
Main appeal was yet to be considered by the DRAT on merits. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has decided and disposed of the writ petition as if the High Court was considering the final decision of the DRAT. The order passed by the DRT confirming the order passed by the Recovery Officer forfeiting 10% amount deposited by the auction purchaser was yet to be decided by the DRAT.
Therefore, the High Court as such has gone beyond the scope and ambit of the proceedings before it. 3.3 By passing the impugned judgment and order the High Court has as such made the proceedings before the DRAT infructuous, as after the impugned judgment and order nothing further is required to be decided by the DRAT. Therefore, the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction by passing the impugned judgment and order."
22. In the present case, the proceedings as regards the objections about the order dated 07.06.2013, were pending before the Assistant Commissioner (I), Devsthan Department, on the application of Dr. Raj Ishwar D Khare, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.R.S. Advertising & Marketing (supra), fully applies and this Court is of the opinion that while passing the order dated 12.07.2019 this Court has exceeded its jurisdiction as there were no pleadings and prayer in the writ petition in regard to the validity of the order dated 07.06.2013. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (26 of 35) [WRW-202/2019]
23. This Court vide order dated 12.07.2019 held that the order dated 07.06.2013 in regard to the entries of new Trustees, is void and without jurisdiction on the count that the application for recording the entries was not made by the Managing / Working Trustee as required under the provisions of the Act of 1959. From the pleadings of the writ petition, review petition and the arguments of the counsel appearing for the respective parties, certain facts have come out, which requires to be taken into consideration. Annex.10 of the writ petition speaks that as per the Resolution passed by the Board of Trustees of the Trust in its meeting held on 11.07.2010 Dr. Srinivasan Ramanathan was appointed as a Managing Trustee of the Trust. On 20.07.2010 a compromise deed was also executed with the acceptance of Dr. Raj Ishwar D Khare, Dr. Srinivasan Ramanathan and Dr. Sohan Singh Khare with the resolution that Dr. Srinivasan Ramanathan will be the Managing Trustee of the Trust. On 21.01.2013, an application was filed by the Managing Trustee Dr. Srinivasan Ramanathan for approval and registration of the change occurs from 11.07.2010, to which objections were filed by Dr. Sohan Singh Rathore on 28.05.2013. On 10.04.2019 Dr. Raj Ishwar D. Khare after six years and after the death of Dr. Sohan Singh Rathore also filed objections, though in several correspondences and the letters, Dr. Raj Ishwar D. Khare has mentioned that Dr. Srinivasan Ramanathan as the Managing (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (27 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] Trustee. On 13.09.2019 the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan dismissed the objections filed by Dr. Raj Ishwar D. Khare stating that Dr. Raj Ishwar D. Khare himself was a signatory for appointment of Dr. Srinivasan Ramanathan as the Managing Trustee and held that Dr. Srinivasan Ramanathan was the Managing Trustee from 11.07.2010 to 09.04.2017. Against the order dated 13.09.2019, Dr. Raj Ishwar D. Khare filed a writ petition which was withdrawn by him on 18.11.2021 with liberty to file an appeal before the Devsthan Department. Thereafter, Dr. Raj Ishwar D. Khare filed an appeal, which is pending. Therefore, the issue of Managing Trustee is still pending before the Commissioner, Devsthan Department, apart from the order dated 13.09.2019 whereby it has been held that Dr. Srinivasan Ramanathan was the Managing Trustee from 11.07.2010 to 09.04.2017. The order of this Court dated 12.07.2019 as regards validity of the order dated 07.06.2013 is beyond pleading and lacks detailed and correct facts from the writ petitioner.
24. The order dated 12.07.2019 declaring the order dated 07.06.2013 as void and without jurisdiction on the sole ground that the application in regard to entries of new Trustees has been submitted by Dr. Srinivasan Ramanathan, who was not the Managing /Working Trustee, whereas detailed facts stated in above para clearly speak that on the (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (28 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] date of filing of the application by Dr. Srinivasan Ramanathan, he was the Managing Trustee of the Trust. The petitioner in his memo of the writ petition has nowhere stated about the aforesaid facts and not submitted the pleadings in regard to the validity of the order dated 07.06.2013. The order dated 12.07.2019 holding the order dated 07.06.2013 as void and without jurisdiction in absence of the pleadings and the material facts as stated above, is an error apparent on the face of record and also shows that the writ Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by passing the order dated 12.07.2019 without pleadings and prayer in regard to the validity of the order dated 07.06.2013.
25. The counsel appearing for the respondent / petitioner has cited certain judgments in regard to the validity of the orders on application for changes in the names of the trustees filed by person other than the Managing /Working Trustee. The legal position though is not disputed that an application for recording the entries about the names of Trustees is to be submitted by the Managing /Working Trustees. In the present case, as evident from the certain facts, as stated in the above paras, have not been brought to the notice of this Court by the counsel appearing for the respondent /petitioner and the order dated 12.07.2019 has been passed in ignorance of all these material facts. If all these facts would have been there on the record by the writ (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (29 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] petitioner, this Court may not have passed the order in regard to holding the order dated 07.06.2013 as void and without jurisdiction because as per the facts brought on record, on the date of submitting the application, Dr. Srinivasan Ramanathan was the Trustee. Therefore, the finding of the Court that the application for change in the entries has not been filed by the Working Trustee is contrary to the facts and is an error apparent on the face of the record.
26. The basic argument of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent /petitioner is that the review petitions are not maintainable as there is no ground available with the review petitioners as required under the law and also that the order dated 07.06.2013 has rightly been held to be void and without jurisdiction, which does not call for any interference in the light of the verdict given in the cases of Mahant Dilipdas (supra), Vegaram (supra), Amrit Bhikaji Kale & Ors. (supra) & others. Since there were neither any pleading challenging the validity of the order dated 07.06.2013 nor any relief prayed and lack of complete detailed facts in the writ petition and further no proper opportunity was given to the respondents in the writ petition to defend the order dated 07.06.2013 by putting complete facts on record. The judgments cited by the counsel appearing for the respondent/ petitioner are not of any help in view of the facts and the circumstances of the present (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (30 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] case. In case the writ petitioner would have submitted the detailed facts, grounds and would have made prayer in the writ petition and writ respondents could have got proper opportunity to defend the order dated 07.06.2013, the situations would have been different.
27. The writ petition has been filed in the name of Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust, Jamdoli through its Founder Trustee Dr. Raj Ishwar D Khare on 21.05.2019, challenging the order dated 25.03.2019 passed on the application filed by Dr. Raj Ishwar D. Khare in his personal capacity. At the time of filing of the application on 01.03.2010, the review petitioner- Dulheram Meena and the respondent No.4-Shakuntala Devi and Dr. Srinivasan Ramanathan along-with Dr. Raj Ishwar D. Khare and Dr. Sohan Singh Rathore are the Members of the Trust. Against the order dated 25.03.2019 Dr. Raj Ishwar D. Khare is not found to be authorized for filing the writ petition in the name of Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust, Jamdoli as there was no Resolution of the Trust Members. When Dr. Raj Ishwar D. Khare having grievance in regard to the order dated 25.03.2019 on an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1959 filed by him in his personal capacity as Trust Member, he could have filed the writ petition in the same capacity. Dr. Raj Ishwar D. Khare has no locus to file the writ petition challenging the order dated 25.03.2019 without therebeing (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (31 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] any resolution of the Trust Members in his favour. The material legal issue is 'Whether Dr. Raj Ishwar D. Khare was having any locus to file writ petition in the name of Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust, Jamdoli, has been ignored while passing the order dated 12.07.2019?
28. The writ petition was preferred with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 25.03.2019 and to grant interim relief with regard to execution and operation of the order darted 07.06.2013 passed in Case No. 19/2013 till decision of the aforesaid Case No.1/2019. In the order dated 25.03.2019, the Assistant Commissioner (I), Devsthan Department has observed that at the stage of proceedings under Section 24 of the Act of 1959, there is no provision for passing an interim order staying execution of any order under challenge.
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909, in para 8 has observed as under:-
"8. The other contention of Mr. Gopal Singh pertains to the second order of Khosla, J., which in effect, reviews his prior order. Learned counsel contends that Art. 226 of the Constitution does not confer any power on the High Court to review its own order and, therefore, the second order of Khosla, J., was without jurisdiction. It is sufficient to say that there is nothing in Art. 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. Here the previous (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (32 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] order of Khosla, J., affected the interests of persons who were not made parties to the proceeding before him. It was at their instance and for giving them a hearing that Khosla' J. entertained the second petition. In doing so, he merely did what the principles of natural justice required him to do. It is said that the respondents before us had no. right to apply for review because they were not parties to the previous proceedings. As we have already pointed out, it is precisely because they were not made parties to the previous proceedings, though their interests were sought to be affected by the decision of the High Court, that the second application was entertained by Khosla, J."
30. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajasthan Textile Mills Vs. The Union of India & Ors. (D.B. Civil Review Petition No.307/2012), decided on 13.05.2013 has observed as under:-
"It is settled proposition of law that on application of review would lie only when the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. The Supreme Court in Inderchand Jain (dead) through LRS Vs. Motilal (dead) through LRS - (2009) 14 SCC 663, held that an application of review would lie only when the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. First thing that would be seen to entertain a review petition is that an order of which review is sought, suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and permitting the order to stand would lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such order, finality attached to the order cannot be disturbed. The power of review can also be exercised by the court in the event of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within knowledge of the party or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. Review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. Rehearing of matter in (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (33 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] the guise of review is impermissible in law. Exercise of inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked for reviewing any order. The Supreme Court in Inderchand Jain (dead) through LRS Vs. Motilal (dead) through LRS - (2009) 14 SCC 663, relied on its earlier judgments in Rajender Kumar and Others Vs. Rambhai and Others - (2007) 15 SCC 513, and Lily Thomas and Others Vs Union of India and Others - (2000) 6 SCC 224."
31. In view of the discussion made above and considering the case laws referred, this Court feels that there were certain errors apparent on the face of the record while passing the order dated 12.07.2019 as no proper opportunity was allowed to the respondents in the writ petition in regard to the observations and findings in respect of validity of the order dated 07.06.2013 because there is lack in the pleadings, prayer and detail correct facts in that regard and also for the other reasons discussed above. Therefore, the review petitions deserve to be allowed.
32. In the writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer:-
"Your humble petitioner most respectfully prayed that impugned order dated 25.03.2019 passed in Case No.1/2019 titled Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust section 24 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 be quashed and set aside and be pleased to grant interim relief with regard to execution and operation of order dated 07.06.2013 passed in case No.19/2013 titled Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust section 23 Rajasthan Public Trust Act 1959 till decision of aforesaid case No.1/2019 titled.(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM)
[2023/RJJP/012423] (34 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued in favour of the petitioner."
33. Since all the parties to the writ petition (petitioner and all the respondents) have been heard while hearing the review petitions and considering all the submissions made by the counsels appearing for the respective parties.
34. Though the petitioner could not show and establish under the law that the Assistant Commissioner has jurisdiction to allow interim relief to the petitioner on his objections for staying the operation of the order dated 07.06.2013. Taking into consideration the pleadings and the prayer made in the writ petition, this Court feels that the ends of justice would met if the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department is directed to dispose of the application No.1/2019 filed by Dr. Raj Ishwar D. Khare expeditiously. This Court is of the view that since the matters are pending before this Court since 2019, it would be in the interest of justice of both the parties to issue directions as observed above by maintaining the status of the Trust as of today.
35. Hence, both the review petitions are allowed and the order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the writ Court is recalled to the extent of findings, observations and the validity of the order dated 07.06.2013 and 25.03.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (I), Devsthan Department and further taking into consideration the facts (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/012423] (35 of 35) [WRW-202/2019] and the grounds narrated in the Writ Petition No.9327/2019 (Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust, Jamdoli v. Assistant Commissioner (I), Devsthan Department & Ors.) and the prayer made therein, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, keeping the orders dated 07.06.2013 and 25.03.2019 in effect, deems just and proper to direct the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department, to dispose of the application No.1/2019 filed by Dr. Raj Ishwar D. Khare, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order with the observations that he shall not be influenced by any observations or findings of this Court made during the proceedings of review petitions and the writ petition. In view of above directions, the writ petition also stands disposed of.
36. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
37. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in the connected petition.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J Sharma NK (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:41 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)