RAJES KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) BY means of present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 1.8.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Moradabad in Civil Revision No. 74 of 2000 which has been filed against the order of the Judge Small Causes Court, Moradabad dated 12.9.2000 by which the suit has been dismissed. It appears that the petitioner was the Chairman of Moradabad Nagar Palika Parishad, Sambhal, Moradabad in the year 1994 and on the basis of the resolution of the Board, the Tractor Pratap Model No. 284 was directed to be auctioned. An enquiry has been set up and it was found that the tractor was sold on a lesser amount causing loss to the Nagar Palika Parishad, Sambhal, Moradabad and, therefore, the petitioner has been held liable to pay a sum of Rs.72,000/-. It appears that the petitioner filed Suit No. 469 of 1995 and during the pendency of the suit also preferred a Writ Petition No. 16697 of 1995 claiming the following reliefs: "(A) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned inquiry report (Annexure No.3) and impugned order dated 24.4.1995 (Annexure No.4) passed by the opposite party no. 2 and impugned order of recovery dated 6.6.1995 (Annexure No.5) passed by the opposite party no.2. (B) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to and to implement the impugned orders (Annexure-4) passed by opposite party no. 2 and Annexure-5. (C) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to proceed further with recovery proceedings in pursuance of the orders Annexure 4 and 5 by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 respectively. (D) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (E) to award costs to the petitioner."
(3.) THE Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.7.1995 dismissed the writ petition and passed the following order: "After hearing the case of the petitioner no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been made out particularly because the responsibilities has been fixed to the effect that the petitioner has been found liable to reimburse to the Municipal Board a sum of Rs.72,000/- (Rs. Seventy two thousand only) being deposit of the Tractor said to be misappropriated. Dismissed summarily." ;