D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) The alleged ex parte order mutating the name of opposite party No. 4 was objected to by the petitioner whereupon the Executive Committee, after considering the objections, set aside the alleged ex parte order and passed a fresh order which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition on 25th September, 1993. In the said order. It was mentioned that both the parties were heard and the papers were perused and the order dated 23rd February, 1993 is cancelled. By an order dated 25th September. 1993, this order was set aside by the Mayor asking the Executive Committee to decide the matter afresh. Mr. M. M. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 19th October, 1993 passed by the Mayor on the ground that the Mayor had no jurisdiction to intervene in the matter inasmuch as the order dated 25th September. 1993 by which the order dated 23rd February. 1993 was cancelled and the application of opposite party No. 4 was rejected was an order under sub-section (1) of Section 213 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Adhiniyam, 1959 which is appealable in view of Section 472 of the said Act. The appellate authority is an authority other than the Mayor as is apparent from Section 472 of the Act. Therefore, according to him, the said order is wholly without Jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Though he had sought to argue on the question of merits of the case but 1 am not prepared to enter into the merits of the case.
(2.) Mr. Ajai Kumar Singh, on the other hand, contends that the Executive Committee has no power to review and, as such. It cannot cancel the order dated 23rd February, 1993 neither it can reject the application of the respondent No, 4, therefore, the order dated 25th September, 1993 is wholly without jurisdiction and, as such. It was rightly set aside by the Mayor and, therefore, according to him, the order impugned is wholly Justified. Alternatively, he submits that since the order dated 25th September, 1993 is without Jurisdiction, therefore, both the orders dated 19th October, 1993 as well as 25th September, 1993 may be quashed and the matter may be decided afresh. A copy of the order dated 23rd February, 1993 has been produced by Sri Ajai Kumar Singh in the matter which is taken on record.
(3.) After having heard the learned counsels for both the parties at length, it appears from the said order that the objection filed by the objector was held to be ineffective, therefore, the said order was not an ex parte order. However, the name of the objector does not find place in the said order and it also does not discuss what was the objection raised by the objector. On the basis of the prayer for re-consideration by Keshav Lal Khatri, the order was reconsidered and. therefore, in effect, the same is a review of the earlier order, is the contention of Sri Ajai Kumar Singh.;