Maharshi Dayanand Bal Mandir Junior High School vs Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri S.C. Tripathi, Counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed for a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur, respondent No. 1, from proceeding with the restoration application filed by respondent No. 2 dated 28.4.2012/16.5.2012 in Revision No. 2878 Maharshi Dayanand Bal Mandir Junior High School v. Gaon Sabha. The petitioner has filed in this restoration application an objection raising preliminary objection of the maintainability of restoration application. Accordingly, this Court by order dated 8.7.2013 and 16.7.2013 passed in Writ-B No. 28282 of 2013, directed the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner in the restoration application within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order before him.

The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the original record of the revision could not be still traced out, however, the Deputy Director of Consolidation is feeling pressure due to order dated 8.7.2013 and is insisting the parties to argue on the preliminary objection without having original record of the revision so that the order dated 8.7.2013 be complied with. He submits that without the original record of the revision, hearing was illegal and will not serve any purpose. In this circumstances this writ petition has been filed.

I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties.

By the order dated 8.7.2013 the Deputy Director of Consolidation was directed to dispose of the preliminary objection of the petitioner within three weeks. The direction is directory in nature and the time limit fixed in the order is not a fixed time limit but is fixed with view to disposing of the preliminary objection at an early date. However, this does not mean that the Deputy Director of Consolidation under the pressure of this order, will proceed to decide the preliminary objection without having record of the case. In such circumstances the order date 8.7.2013 as modified by order dated 16.7.2013 is clarified and it is held that the direction is only for expeditious disposal of the preliminary objection as well as restoration application. The Deputy Director of Consolidation shall proceed to decide the preliminary objection in accordance with law after having the original record.

The Counsel for the petitioner at last submits that although record has been received in the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation from the Record Room but the officials are avoiding and they are neither submitting any report that the record is not traceable nor producing record in spite of the various orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in this respect. This is within the administrative domain of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and he is competent to handle it. With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is disposed of.