Dwarka Nath Jha, J. - (1.) HANUMAN Prasad has directed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the District Magistrate with respect to grant of cinema licence. Learned counsel for the State brought to my notice the order passed in appeal on 19 -11 -1985 by Sri K.K. Randher. Learned counsel for the Petitioner invited my attention to Annexure -10 which is an affidavit of Sri V.K. Chaurasia Advocate who had appeared on behalf of his petitioner). It has been stated in the affidavit that he never made any concession that the appeal was not pressed.
(2.) I have given my anxious consideration to the contents of affidavit and the order passed by Sri K.K. Randher. The order is a short one and is quoted in verbatim: - - No interim order may be passed without perusing the records which are not before me. The appeal is dismissed as prayed by the appellant's learned counsel. The order suffers from ambiguity. It is not necessary to spell any reasons. The petitioner is willing to appear and place his legal question consideration of the learned appellate authority. Instead of passing any orders in exercise of discretionary, jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article: 226 of the Constitution, it is appropriate that the learned appellate authority should devote himself to the questions proposed to be canvassed in order dispose of the appeal it is necessary that the Officer should have record before him.
(3.) CONSIDERING the entire facts and circumstances I set the order dated 19 -11 -1985 with a direction that the appeal will be restored to its original number by Sri K.K. Randher or his successor and he will dispose of the appeal on merits by 15th December, 1985. The petitioner is before the appropriate authority on 22nd November, 1985, the learned authority; even if receives no intimation from this Court will proceed to dispose of the appeal on the basis of certified copy of this order produced before him. Standing counsel will also intimate the concerned authority.;