Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri C.K. Parekh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.P. Singh, Advocate representing re spondent No. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel, representing respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
(2.) WITH the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties this petition is fi nally heard. The revision filed by the respon dent No. 4 was decided by the Deputy Di rector of Consolidation by order dated 29.6.2006. The respondent No. 4 filed an application for recalling of the said order on the ground that he had not been heard. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 10.7.2008 not only allowed the recall application of the respondent No.4 but also allowed the revision filed by him. According to the petitioners this order dated 10.7.2008 was passed without notice and opportunity to them. The petitioners filed a recall application as also a writ peti tion before this Court against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 10.7.2008. The writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 12.12.2008 on the ground that the petitioners were al ready pursuing their remedy before the Deputy Director of Consolidation by way of recall application. This Court further directed that the Deputy Director of Con solidation may decide the said recall application of the petitioners after affording op portunity of hearing to the parties on its own merits. Pursuant to the said directions of this Court the Deputy Director of Con solidation has passed the impugned order dated 6.2.2009 whereby the application of the petitioners has been rejected. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Dep uty Director of Consolidation has not re corded any finding as to whether any no tice or opportunity of hearing was ever given to the petitioners before passing the order dated 10.7.2008. The learned Counsel for the respondents has also not been able to show from the record that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had passed the order dated 10.7.2008 after giving notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is, however, submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 that in case all the three orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consoli dation are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for a fresh decision of the revision on mer its after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, both the parties would get an opportunity to address the revision on merits and the order may be passed there after.
(3.) CONSIDERING the fact that the or ders dated 29.6.2006, 10.7.2008 and 6.2.2009 passed by the Deputy Director of Consoli dation suffer from some vice or the other either of lack of opportunity or of being vitiated on other grounds are hereby set aside. The Writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision filed by the respondent No. 4 being Revision No. 399/617 on its own merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties strictly in accordance with law. Petition Allowed.;