Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead the left out parties.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. In view of the facts and circum stances and the order proposed to be passed hereunder, the respondents are not being put to notice and their right to seek variation/recall of the order, if they are aggrieved, is reserved. Application filed by the petitioners to recall the order dated 9.4.2008 on the ground that it was passed without any no tice or opportunity of hearing and their chak was disturbed, has been dismissed by the Deputy. Director of Consolidation on the ground that one Satpal Singh has filed Writ Petition No. 27586 of 2008 before this Court and during the pendency of the same, the recall application cannot be heard.
(3.) I have perused the record of Writ Petition No. 27586 of 2008. Though chal lenge in the said petition has been made to the order against which the petitioners moved recall application, but since there is no interim order staying the proceedings, mere pendency of the writ petition cannot stand in the way of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the recall applica tion. Furthermore, when the petition was presented on 6.6.2008, on the request made by the learned Counsel for the peti tioner, it was directed to be put up on 1.7.2008 as fresh. On 16.7.2008, the case was again taken up but since no one appeared, it was directed to be listed in ordinary course. The contention of the petitioners is that on the one hand their chak has been disturbed without hearing them and the recall application has been rejected on account of pendency of the writ petition challenging the said order. Since mere pendency of the writ petition cannot stand in the way of Deputy Director of Consolida tion, the impugned order dated 3.12.2008 rejecting the recall application filed by the petitioners on account of pendency of writ, petition No. 27586 of 2008 is not liable to be sustained and is hereby quashed.;