1 4 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2945/2006. Mohan Ram Bhargav Vs. State & Ors. Date of Order :: 24th September 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI None present for the petitioner. Mr. Alkesh Aggarwal, Government Counsel. Mr. Praveen Choudhary for Mr. R.S. Saluja, for the respondents Nos. 5 & 6. ..... BY THE COURT: In this matter, nobody was present for the petitioner on 19.09.2008 even in the second round of call and perusal of the record revealed that the matter was not being attended on behalf of the petitioner since long and was adjourned in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner on 28.11.2007, 19.05.2008 and 16.07.2008. On 19.09.2008 though learned counsel for the respondents were present and were ready to make submissions, but in the interest of justice, last opportunity was extended to the petitioner to make submissions, if so chosen, and the matter was adjourned to be listed today. Today also, nobody is present for the petitioner. In the circumstances, the matter has been considered on merits. Challenge has been given in this writ petition to the order dated 03.06.2004 (Annex.9) as passed by the Collector, Churu in Revision Petition No. 13/2003 that was filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Panchayat Samiti, 2 Sujangarh on 28.12.1999. Though several grounds have been stated in this writ petition including the ground regarding jurisdiction of the Collector concerned but it is noticed that the revision petition was filed by the petitioner himself and no such ground relating to jurisdiction appears to have been urged before the Collector. However, it is also contended in the writ petition that several relevant points have not been considered by the learned Collector. It is noticed that in the order impugned, after merely stating that certain records have been perused, the learned Collector, Churu has observed that the revision petition was not required to be accepted. The impugned order cannot be sustained for being practically a non-speaking order. Learned counsel for the respondents also fairly conceded that the impugned one is a non-speaking order and it would be in the interest of justice that the matter is remitted to the Revisional Authority for reconsideration of the said revision petition and for its decision by an speaking order with reference to the record. In the aforesaid view of the matter, even when the learned counsel for the petitioner has chosen not to appear, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The impugned order dated 03.06.2004 is set aside and the Revision Petition No. 13/2003 is restored for reconsideration of the Revisional Authority. The respondents Nos. 5 and 6 who 3 have been ordered to be impleaded in this writ petition by the order dated 06.12.2006 are also ordered to be impleaded as parties in the said revision petition and they shall stand noticed through their counsel appearing before this Court to appear before the Revisional Authority on 24.10.2008. If no appearance is put on behalf of the petitioner before the Revisional Authority, the said Authority may issue notice to the petitioner and to the Gram Panchayat concerned and thereafter decide the revision petition in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs of this writ petition. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/