- (1.) WITH the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal today itself.
(2.) THE appellant is aggrieved of the order dated 16th July, 2002, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 3072/2002 whereby the writ application filed by appellant against the order dated 12th April, 2002, passed by the respondent No. 2 was disposed of (in effect and substance dismissed). The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the pending review proceedings before respondent No. 2 and in fact, directed him to dispose of the review application at his earliest. In this manner, apparently, therefore, the learned Single Judge took the view that exercise of review jurisdiction by respondent No. 2 was proper and also that he rightly was proceeding to record evidence in the Review proceedings. Shorn of unnecessary details, the crux of the matter is that against the cancellation of licenses of the appellant, the appellant had preferred an appeal under Section 8 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Against the order dismissing this appeal, the appellant had approached the Member, Board of Revenue, under Clause (3) of Section 8 of the Act, who, in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction, had set aside the order of the licensing authority and restored the licenses of the appellant. It appears that at a later stage, the Excise Department approached the Member, Board of Revenue, by way of filing a Review Application. The Member, Board of Revenue, on consideration, dismissed thisReview Application filed by the Excise Department and upheld the order earlier passed by him, whereby he had allowed the revision application of the appellant. This was done on 10.1.2002. Even while the appellant was still facing difficulty in the reopening of the shops, it appears that the Excise Department filed a Second Review Application before the Member, Board of Revenue, being Review Case No. 16/2002 (arising out of the Board Case Nos. 4 to 7 of 2001). On 12.4.2002, respondent No. 2 being the Member, Board of Revenue, admitted the Second Review Application and even condoned the delay and passed an interim order staying the operation of the earlier order passed by his predecessor till the disposal of the Second Review Application. All this was done ex parte, in the absence of the appellant and without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. To repeat, the delay was condoned in the appellant's absence; order staying the operation of the earlier order until the disposal of the Review Application was also passed in the absence of the appellant. For ready reference, we quote the order dated 12.4.2002 : - - 'ABSTRACT OF THE;