Mukesh vs Sureshchand

Heard on the question of admission.

This order will govern disposal of Writ Appeal No. 526 and 527 of 2014, as the learned Single Judge has decided the two writ petitions bearing Writ Petition No. 9204/2012 and Writ Petition No. 9205/2012 by a common impugned order dated 05.04.2014.

By filing this intra court appeal, the appellants have challenged the order dated 05.04.2014 passed in the aforesaid two writ petitions. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants, who were contesting respondents in the writ petition, have not been granted adequate opportunity to file reply of the writ petitions and the writ petitions have been disposed of by setting aside the order dated 10.09.2012 passed by the Registrar, Public Trust impugned in the writ petition.

On going through the proceedings of the Writ Court, we found that the matter was adjourned from time to time, but no reply was filed by the appellants. Thus, this ground of the appellants is not tenable.

It appears that the learned Single Judge noticing the fact that the Registrar, Public Trust having recused himself from the matters relating to the Trust in question by letter dated 11.09.2012, i.e. a day after passing of the impugned order dated 10.09.2012 held that the Registrar should not have decided the matter on 10.09.2012. Having observed so, the Writ Court, has set aside the order passed by the Registrar and remanded the matter back to the Registrar (the other incumbent) to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, after granting an opportunity of hearing to all the parties.

Undisputedly, on 07.09.2012, an application was filed on behalf of the contesting respondents before the Collector, Indore stating therein that:-

From the order passed by the Registrar on 10.09.2012, it is revealed that the Registrar had framed an issue, which reads thus:-

While deciding the aforesaid issue in the final order, the Registrar has observed that there is no legal ground for not hearing the case by himself, as according to him, the counsel appearing for the parties have agreed for hearing before him. He rejected the objection made by the contesting respondents that he should not hear the matter.

It is also revealed that on receipt of the aforesaid letter dated 07.09.2012 written by the contesting respondents, the Collector vide order dated 12.09.2012 transferred the case to other officer. However, before that the Registrar had already passed the impugned order on 10.09.2012 and then sent a letter on 11.09.2012 recusing himself from the cases of the Trust in question. These facts demonstrate that the Registrar instead of directing the parties to get an order from the Collector about their prayer for transfer of the matter and without waiting for few days for the same, in hot-haste taken upon himself the task of deciding issue No. 1 as also the entire matter, and then wrote a letter on 11.09.2012 for recusing himself from the cases relating to the said Trust.

Considering aforesaid background facts, in our considered view, if the learned Single Judge has taken view and decided the writ petitions, as aforesaid, the learned Single Judge has committed no error. In the circumstances, no case for interference in the order of learned Single Judge in this intra court appeal is made out.

The appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.