- (1.) THIS intra -court appeal has been filed against order of learned Single Judge dt. 17.09.2012 and the office has pointed out delay of 154 days in filing the appeal for which application u/s. 5 of Limitation Act has been filed duly supported by an affidavit of the appellant. Counsel for appellant submits that the appellant herein was one of the respondent No. 3, before the learned Single Judge and the writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission without issuance of notice vide order dt. 17.09.2012 placing reliance upon the judgment passed in Anita Devi Khatik Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition -9164/2012, decided on 11.09.2012 at Principal Seat Jodhpur where liberty was granted to the applicants to send representation seeking necessary correction admissible under the law on or before 24.09.2012 but the fact is that in the garb of the order of the Court dt. 17.09.2012 which has been passed behind the back of the appellant Government has granted permission to the writ petitioners for necessary corrections and that has adversely affected the rights of the present appellant.
(2.) HE further submits that since the notices were not issued to the appellant, who was respondent before the learned Single Judge, he was completely unaware of the order impugned dt. 17.09.2012 and immediately when it came to his notice he approached to this Court by filing instant intra -court appeal.
(3.) THE reason assigned by the appellant in his application seeking condonation of delay u/s. 5 of Limitation Act is reasonable and appears to be justified. Accordingly the application stands allowed and the delay is condoned. After hearing counsel for appellant we find that the learned Single Judge has not examined individual grievance of the writ petitioner or the correction being proposed to be made by the applicant. However, general observations and directions are made granting liberty to the writ petitioner to make necessary corrections by sending representation on or before 24.09.2012 the deadline fixed and we do not find that the rights of present appellant to whom opportunity could not be afforded by the learned Single Judge is in any manner going to be adversely affected and still the appellant finds himself aggrieved regarding the corrections permitted in the light of order of the learned Single Judge dt. 17.09.2012 he is always at liberty to assail such later action of the State Government while availing remedy available to him under the law. Consequently the appeal stands dismissed with liberty indicated above.;