Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 83 of 2013 --- 1. Meera Devi 2. Md. Kashim 3. Jagarnath Prasad Keshari --- --- --- Petitioners Versus 1. Ashok Kumar Sah 2. The State of Jharkhand 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar 4. Superintendent of Police, Deoghar 5. The Special Officer, Deoghar Municipality, Deoghar now Chief Executive Officer, Deoghar Municipal Corporation 6. Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar 7. Officer - in – Charge, Deoghar Police Station, Deoghar --- Opp. Parties with Cont. Case (Civil) No. 581 of 2014 --- Ashok Kumar Sah @ Ashok Kumar Shaw --- ---- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Amit Kumar, Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar 3. Rakesh Bansal, Superintendent of Police, Deoghar 4. Alxous Lakra, Chief Executive Officer, Deoghar Municipal Corporation 5. Jai Joyti Samanta, Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar --- Opp. Parties --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner: Mr. Arbind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate (in Civil Review 83/13) For the O.P. - State: JC to GP-V For the O.P. No. 1: Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate (for petitioner in Cont case 581/14) --- Civil Review No. 83/2013 07/ 08.04.2016 Order dated 17.09.2014 seeking leave to file review petition on the part of the present petitioner, reads as under: “I.A. No. 4174/2014 has been preferred by the petitioners for ignoring the defect no. 9 and I.A. No. 4741/2014 has been preferred for seeking leave of this Court to file this review application.
2. Defect No. 9 is to the effect that the petitioners herein were not party in the writ petition. On the last occasion, time was granted on the request of the learned counsel for the respondent-Deoghar Municipality to obtain instruction on the prayer made in the I.A. No. 4174/2014. However, no one has appeared on behalf of the said respondent and no affidavit has been filed thereafter on their behalf. From perusal of the contents of the instant I.A., and upon hearing the counsel for the petitioners, it appears that they had preferred interlocutory application bearing no. 2508/2012 in WPC No. 7567/2011 for impleading them as intervener respondent in the said writ petition.
3. However, it is submitted that though, their name was appearing in the cause list, the writ petition was taken up on mentioning of the counsel for the respondent no. 5- Deoghar Municipal Corporation without informing them and judgment dated 26.04.2013 was passed. It is submitted that from the order passed on 18.06.2011 by the S.D.O., Deoghar (Annexure-2), it is clear that the present review petitioners 2. are tenants in the same house of the writ petitioner which were sought to be demolished on account of being in a dilapidated condition and in that context, said order has been passed also observing that the concerned parties may move before the appropriate Court.
4. Upon hearing the counsel for the petitioners and the respondent State, it therefore appears that the present review petitioners who had filed an intervention application in the disposed of writ petition, were necessary parties likely to be affected and were required to be heard before the writ petition could have been disposed of. Therefore, the petitioners are granted leave to pursue the present review application. In that view of the matter, defect no. 9, as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter, is ignored.
5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 4174/2014 stands disposed of. I.A. No. 4714/2014 is allowed. Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. 1-writ petitioner and undertakes to file vakalatnama within a week. Let the matter appear under the appropriate heading.”
2. The factum that the present petitioner had filed an intervention application during pendency of the writ petition being WPC No. 7567/2011, is not in dispute. The factum that on 26.04.2013 when the matter was taken up on mentioning by the counsel for the respondent no. 4 – Deoghar Municipal Corporation, learned counsel for the Intervener was not informed. It therefore leads to the impression that though, interventionist had stake in the matter, but writ petition was decided in his absence. The order dated 26.04.2013 passed in WPC No. 7567/2011, of which review is being sought, reads as under: “Heard counsel for the parties. The writ petition has been posted today on mentioning by the respondent no. 4-Deoghar Municipal Corporation.
2. The simple grievance of the petitioner herein is that he has made an application before the respondent corporation on 5th of June 2006 for passing necessary orders under section 194 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 1922 for granting permission to the petitioner to demolish the building as it is in dilapidated condition.
3. Counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that they are inclined to pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner in view of the exigency which has occurred. However, during the pendency of the writ application, respondents have chosen to seek permission of the Court before taking any decision in the matter and that is why, it has been posted today on their mentioning.
4. In view of the aforesaid facts and submissions of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the competent authority of the respondent no. 4-Deoghar Municipal Corporation to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law on the application of the petitioner which is pending before them, as expeditiously as possible.”
3. It is also apparent from Annexure-2 that the writ petitioner had moved the Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar for deputation of Police Force to assist in 3. demolition of the premises in question, of which the learned SDO had directed him to approach the competent Court of law for eviction of the tenant. The aforesaid chain of facts lead to the only conclusion that the present petitioners who had already filed an application for intervention and may have a stake in the matter, were not heard before the order was passed on 26.04.2013 in the writ petition. Therefore, the order dated 26.04.2013 needs to be recalled as it has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. Accordingly, review petition is allowed. Order dated 26.04.2013 passed in WPC No. 7567/2011 is recalled (see Pohla Singh vs. State of Punjab & others (2004) 6 SCC126. Let the writ petition be listed under the appropriate heading for its consideration in the first week of May before the appropriate bench. Cont. 581/2014 1. In view of the detailed order passed in Civil Review No. 83/2013 today, whereunder order under offence dated 26.04.2013 passed in WPC No. 7567/2011 has been recalled, no case of contempt survives. Therefore, contempt petition is also disposed of. Proceedings are dropped. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/