CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2004) 09 AHC CK 0225

Naukhez Khan and Others vs Sakhawat Ullah and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 24 September 2004 · Citation: (2005) 1 AWC 169

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anjani Kumar, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
C.M.W.P. No. 46350 of 2003

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 355 words

Anjani Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A. K. Chaudhary for the contesting respondents.

2.

The petitioners, aggrieved by an order passed by the prescribed authority under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby the prescribed authority rejected the application filed by the petitioners for recalling the order dated 8th May, 2002 and 14th May, 2002 whereby the prescribed authority directed the case to proceed ex parte, has approached this Court by means of this writ petition.

3.

The petitioners have filed an application along with affidavit giving sufficient cause for their absence. The prescribed authority by the orders impugned has stated that since the order has been passed by his predecessor in office, therefore, his predecessor can recall those orders. For this reason the application has been rejected. Sri P.K. Jain has stated that the authority should have passed the order giving reasons and has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court Ramji Dass and Ors. v. Mohan Singh 1978 ARC 496. wherein the Apex Court has held that the matter should be decided basically on the merits and not on the technicalities.

4.

In this view of the matter and for the reasons that the prescribed authority has given reasons which cannot be accepted for recall of the orders, I find substance in the contention raised by Sri Jain.

5.

In view of the matter the order dated 20th September, 2003 passed by the prescribed authority deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The applications filed by the petitioners for recall of the order dated 8th May, 2002 and 14th May, 2002 are directed to be decided by the prescribed authority on merit and should not be rejected on the ground on which it has been rejected.

6.

For the reasons stated above the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 20th September, 2003 is quashed. The matter is sent back to the prescribed authority to decide in accordance with law and in the light of observation made by this Court.

7.

The parties shall bear their own costs.