C/M Of Gramin Siksha Prasar Samiti ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy., ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 11271 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 173 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- C/M Of Gramin Siksha Prasar Samiti Bihar Thru. Manager Sri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy., Secondary Education And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Girish Chandra Verma,Lalta Prasad Misra,Nagendra Bahadur Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

(C.M.Application No.1 of 2023)

Heard Dr. L.P. Misra, Sri G.C.Verma and Sri N.B.Singh, learned counsel for review-applicants, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Prashant Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.5.

Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the review petition, we are satisfied that delay has sufficiently been explained.

Accordingly, the prayer for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay is condoned.

The writ petition was decided finally by means of the order dated 24.08.2022 passed by this Court after setting aside the order impugned therein and the matter has been remitted to learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition afresh after summoning and examining the original records from the office of the Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar.

The prayer in the review petition is confined to the extent that it may be clarified that observation of facts as find recorded in the judgment and order dated 24.08.2022 shall not come in the way of learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition on its own merit. Once the matter is to be decided afresh by learned Single Judge, the observations recorded by us in our order dated 24.08.2022, are always subject to the decision which may be taken by learned Single Judge on perusal of original records from the office of Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar.

Sri H.G.S. Parihar, appearing for the respondent no.5 has drawn our attention to para-19 of the judgment dated 24.08.2022 and has submitted that he did not make statement that Rakesh Kumar Tripathi was made member in the meeting held on 01.04.2016.

In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the review petition with the observation that any observation of facts made by us in the order dated 24.08.2022 shall always be subject to decision afresh of the writ petition to be made by learned Single Judge on perusal of original records from the office of the Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar.

We also clarify that all the pleas, factual as also legal, shall be open to be raised by the parties before the learned Single Judge. It is also to be observed that the statement regarding induction of Rakesh Kumar Tripathi as member of the Society in the meeting dated 01.04.2016 shall not be attributed to learned Senior Advocate, Sri H.G.S.Parihar.

In view of the order passed by us today i.e.17.04.2023 on review petition, the application for correction stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 17.4.2023

Sanjay