- (1.) The instant special appeal has been filed by the petitioner-appellant under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 15.1.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.7346/2009 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant on the ground that writ petition has been field by the power of attorney holder Mr. Anil S/o Basanti Lal on the strength of power of attorney dated 1.3.2000 alleged to have been executed by Mahendra Singh-original petitioner in his favour. The learned Single Judge observed in the order that power of attorney authorised Anil S/o Basanti Lal only for execution of the documents in favour of Basanti Lal S/o Chhoga Lal respondent no.5 herein and this writ petition has been filed by way of special power of attorney which has not authorised the petitioner to file this writ petition assailing the action of the registering authority in registering the lease executed by the department of Mines in favour of Basanti Lal S/o Chhoga Lal.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submits that the order dated 26.6.2009 (Annex.9) was passed by the Collector, Rajsamand in compliance of the judgment rendered by this court in SBCWP NO. 1697/2001, decided on 9.3.2009 whereby the matter was remitted to the Collector, Rajsamand to decide the matter afresh. That writ petition was also filed by Anil S/o Basanti Lal Jain. At the time of deciding the said writ petition, no such plea was taken, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered this aspect of the matter but has not considered the said fact, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed and case may be remitted to the learned Single Judge for deciding the case on merit.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we have perused the record of SBCWP No. 1679/2001. The said writ petition was also filed by power of attorney Anil S/o Basanti Lal in which following directions were issued by the learned Single Judge on 9.3.2009, which reads as under: "As a result of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above; the impugned order dated 19.12.2000 is quashed and set aside; Registration Appeal No. 2/2000 shall stand restored before the Collector, Rajsamand wherein the legal representatives of the transferee (respondents Nos. 5/1 to 5/3 herein) shall stand substituted as the appellants and the present petitioner shall stand impleaded as the respondent No. 2. The parties through their counsel present before this Court shall stand at notice to appear before the Collector, Rajsamand for hearing of the said appeal on 02.04.2009 who shall be expected to extent adequate opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties and then to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs of this petition." And in compliance of the aforesaid order the power of attorney appeared before the Collector, Rajsamand and submitted argument on behalf of the petitioner-appellant in which the impugned order dated 22.6.2009 was passed. Therefore, the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant through power of attorney holder Anil S/o Basanti Lal Jain on the ground that Anil is holding special power of attorney which does not authorise him to file writ petition is not justified because apparently the writ petition has been dismissed on technical grounds, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that the impugned order dated 22.6.2009 (Annex.9) was passed by the Collector, Rajsamand in compliance of the order passed by this Court in earlier writ petition which was filed by Mahendra Kumar through power of attorney Anil S/o Basanti Lal Jain, who has filed this writ petition.;