- (1.) BY this common order we propose to dispose of these two Review Applications, being Civil Review Nos. 110 of 2001 and 120 of 2001, as also the implead -ment application dated 22.1.2002, filed by Shri H.B. Lal.
(2.) BY our judgment dated 21.9.2001 [see 2001" (3) JCR 296 (Jhr)], we had, inter alia, quashed and set aside the appointments of Mr. Rajeev Ranjan and Mr. Sachidanand Akhauri. as Chairman and Member of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, respectively, and had directed the State to re -start the process for making fresh appointments on these posts. Whereas Mr. Sachidanand Akhauri has filed Civil Review No. 120 of 2001, the State of Jharkhand has filed Civil Review No. 110 of 2001. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, however, has not filed any review application with respect to the aforesaid judgment in this Court, but has challenged the aforesaid judgment in the Supreme Court by filing S.L.P. (Civil) No. 18514/2001. When these Review Applications came up earlier we had made an observation on 8.1.2002 that these be adjourned for the time being because of the pendency of the aforesaid Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. However, on 18.3.2002 when these again came up for consideration, the learned Advocate General, appearing for the State, and Mr. S.B. Gadodia. learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Review -petitioner Mr. Sachidanand Akhauri, drew our attention to the Supreme Courts order passed on 19.11.2001 and submitted that because of the aforesaid order we should hear these Review Applications. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also agreed with this and because of the joint submissions made by all three of them we decided to hear these two Review Applications.
(3.) THE sole grievance of the Review -petitioner Mr. Sachidanand Akhauri. as projected before us in course of hearing today by his learned Counsel Mr. Gadodia, is that by the Judgment under review we have quashed and set aside the appointment of Mr. Akhauri as the Member of the Board without issuing notice to him and without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. Mr. Gadodia submits that, in fact, he was not even a party -respondent in the writ application and our passing the judgment and thereby quashing and setting aside his appointment has acted prejudicially and adversely to his interest and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Mr. Gadodia submits that we should recall that part of our judgment in so far as it relates to the quashing and setting aside the appointment of Mr. Akhauri as the Member of the Board and by affording opportunity of hearing to him. re -hear the writ application to that limited extent, re -consider and re -examine all the relevant aspects relating to his appointment and re - decide the issue.;