1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 873 OF 2009 Nirmalsingh Ailsinghani .. Petitioner Vs State of Mahaashtra and anr .. Respondents Mr.S.P.Kanuga, for the petitioner. Ms .P.S.Cardozo, AGP, for respondent nos 1 and 2. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 10/12/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP appearing for the respondents waives service. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.7.2008 passed by the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner for the Compensation Pool Properties Cum Custodian of Evacuee Properties, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, by which the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner was rejected. 3. On 5.2.2009, this Court, after hearing the learned counsel T 2 for the petitioner, passed the following order. “ Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision petition was heard by Mr D.R.Mali, Authrosied Chief Settlement Commissioner somewhere in the year 2002, whereas the impugned order is passed on 8th July, 2008. He submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the short ground for having passed after lapse of more than six years. He placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 318= AIR 2001 SC 3173. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. However, before setting aside the order, issue notice to Mr D.R.Mali to explain why he could not pass order for six years and why entry in his record leading to negligence on his part to decide the matter should not be made.” In view of the aforementioned order, on last occasion I had directed the learned AGP to produce the entire record before the court so as to verify whether the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are correct. The learned AGP, after perusing the record and more particularly Roznama, fairly, submitted that what has been recorded in the order dated 5.2.2009 is correct. I have myself perused the Roznama dated 11.4.2009, which shows on that date the Authrosied Chief Settlement Commissioner closed the case for orders. The impugned order is dated 8.7.2008. It is thus clear that it was passed after lapse of more than six years. Keeping that in view and considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil Rai 3 V State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 318, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Order accordingly. Revision Petition No.18 of 2001 is restored to file. The Authroised Chief Settlement Commissioner shall endeavour to hear and decide the Revision Petition, afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Vide order dated 5.2.2009, this Court had issued notice to Mr D.R.Mali to explain why he could not pass order for six years and why entry in his record leading to negligence on his part to decide the matter should not be made. Mr D.R.Mali has retired on 31.5.2009. In view thereof, in my opinion, no useful purpose would be served by passing any further orders. Hence, notice is discharged. Rule is disposed of in terms of this order. No costs (D. B. Bhosale, J.) 4