AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Swatanter Kumar, J.—I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.
Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India states that the affidavits, copies of which have been taken on record by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2002, probably have not been filed before the competent authority. This fact is not admitted by Mr. O.P. Goyal, who states that the affidavits were taken into consideration by the competent authority and they find mention in the order of the revisional authorities.
In the above circumstances, Mr. Sharma, further states that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded to the revisional authority, who shall consider the affidavits, if they are on record and then pass appropriate orders after hearing the counsel for the parties.
In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the parties, the order of the revisional authority needs to be set aside. The order of the revisional authority, thus, is set aside with the further direction to the said authority to pass an order in accordance with law and expeditiously.
The petitioner shall be under obligation to furnish proof of filing of the affidavits which are stated to have been filed before the authorities. The revisional authority shall first verify whether such affidavits were filed before the adjudicating, appellate, revisional authority at any point of time.
The petitioner is at liberty to refer to the judgments of the High Court in the connected matter before the authority concerned.
Parties are directed to appear before the concerned authority on 28.3.2003.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Copy of the order be given dasti.