S.R.YADAV - (1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order dated 18-3-1999 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties on the point of admission and perused the relevant papers on file. The learned Counsel for the revisionist mainly submitted that the revision should be admitted because the case was initiated and was pending prior to coming into force the U.P. Act No. 20 of 1997. The counsel for the otherside contended that the second revision could not be filed because of the amended provisions made by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1997. In this respect he has cited a case law reported in 2002 RJ 403.
(3.) A perusal of file and orders reveal that the revision was preferred before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, against the order dated 5-10-1995 passed by the CRO, Pratapgarh and in due course of time to stood decided by the Additional Commissioner's order dated 18-3-1999 and the present revision against the Additional Commissioner's impugned order has been preferred before the Board. Apparently the instant revision before the Board has been filed by the same person who has preferred the revision before the Commissioner against the order dated 5-10-1995 passed by the CRO and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 20 of 1997 shall be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Thus, it is clear that the revision has been filed before the Board after enforcement of U.P. Act No. 20 of 1997 which came into force on 14-10-1997. In the circumstances I find force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the otherside and the case law referred to above is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.;