Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the impugned order dt. 11.6.2010 (Ann. 12) and order dt 15.09.2009 (Ann. 10) and has prayed for besetting both these orders. While confining his arguments to the extent of validity and legality of the order passed by the appellate authority dt. 11.06.2010 (Ann. 12), the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appellate authority has not decided the appeal of the petitioner on merits and as such the said order is not sustainable. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority has taken shelter of its earlier order which was passed at petitioner's appeal and which has already been set at naught by this Court in the earlier petition preferred by the petitioner bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6589/2007. With these submissions learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Parmendra Bohra has urged that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is not at all legally sustainable.
(2.) MR . Hargovind Chanda and Mr. Deepak Kanojiya, the learned counsel for the respondents, are not disputing this fact situation that the earlier order passed by the appellate authority has been set at naught by this Court in earlier petition preferred by the petitioner. This being situation, the order passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dt. 11.06.2010 (Ann. 12) is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal of the petitioner under Rule 23 of CCA Rules, 1958 afresh; The appellate authority is expected to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and shall pass a speaking order. No order as to costs.;