D.S. Sinha, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Vinay Malviya, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. appearing for the respondent -applicants, and Shri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner -opposite party. The petitioner -opposite party filed the Writ Petition No. 680 (Tax) of 1987 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 2nd June, 1987 passed by the Divisional Level Committee, the respondent No. 2, constituted under Section 4A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (now rechristened as U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948), hereinafter called the Act, whereby its application for grant of exemption under Section 4A of the Act was rejected. This Court vide its order and judgment dated 14th October, 1987 allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order dated 2nd June, 1987, and directed that the application of the petitioner -opposite party be reconsidered and fresh order thereon be passed within one month of the date on which a certified copy of the order was placed before the respondent No. 2.
(2.) THE respondent -applicants have filed instant review application, 2 years and 337 days beyond the period of limitation, drawing attention of the Court to the fact that Section 4A of the Act has been amended by U.P. Ordinance No 26 of 1991 with retrospective effect, and that Clause 22 of the said Ordinance permits the aggrieved party to move for review of the decision of any Court or authority in the light of the amended Section 4A of the Act. On this premise, the applicants seek review of the judgment of the Court dated 14th October, 1987 deciding the Writ Petition No. 680 (Tax) of 1987. There is nothing on record before the Court to suggest that the direction of the Court for deciding the application of the petitioner -opposite party afresh within one month of the production of the certified copy of the order had not been complied with by the respondent No. 2, and the proceedings in pursuance of the direction of this Court were pending either on the date of introduction of the Ordinance or on the date of moving instant review application; or they are still pending. Thus, it would be reasonable to presume that proceedings must not be lingering on for all this period of over thirteen years, and must have concluded.
(3.) OTHERWISE also, the order and judgment of the Court dated 14th October, 1987, while quashing the impugned order, merely directed the respondent No. 2 to decide the application of the petitioner -opposite party under Section 4A of the Act and pass a fresh order. Needless to say that in the direction it was inherent that the application would be considered afresh and decided in accordance with the existing law. This Court has no reason to believe that while carrying out the direction of this Court the respondent No. 2 may not have taken into account the law prevailing at the time of passing of the order afresh on the application of the petitioner -opposite party.;