- (1.) A. K. Roopanwal, J. Heard Mr. Rama Nand Pandey for the revisionist and perused the record.
(2.) I do not think it proper to issue notice to the opposite sides as the order passed by the revisional Court is purely erroneous and if notices are issued, it would simply mean that illegality has been allowed to perpetuate by the High Court also. It appears from the record that at the initiation of the revisionist the first Court issued the order for registration and investigation of the case. Against the order dated 16-3-2007 a revision was filed, which was allowed and the order dated 16-3- 2007 was set aside. As the order dated 16-3-2007 was an administrative order, though passed on judicial side and revision was filed by the opposite parties No. 2 to 6 at pre-cognizance stage, hence, they had no locus standi to file such a revision and the revisional Court was also not justified in allowing such revision. My view is fortified by Union of India v. W. N. Chadha, 1993 SCC (Cr) 1171, and the ruling of this Court reported in Munish Chandra Srivastava v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 2007 (58) ACC 1041.
(3.) IN view of the above, I find that the order impugned in this revision is an illegal order, which is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, revision is allowed. Order dated 12-7-2007 is set aside. Revision allowed. .;