ir ^ 3\ ro 4 ^ ^? 3? !3 <S| aL 4 ^4 ^ 5]? al 4 ^ 1 ^ -i| ^^ -91 L 'STI^T'^T i^-ti^ ^n^i 5h<4iGb ^rf^<T ^sr ^Trqi^R, ^-al<i^^. l^<rti<iy 3TI^T -q^? Tfre^'SFHTTO** ******'** ***'*<(T;^ 200 ^^^f-——— ^I^W^ 1 V*^^S7SWSK SB : Hon»ble8hriManindra Ittohan Shrivastawa, J. 21.02.2011 Shri V.K. Mishra, couns^l for the petitioner. Heard on admission. Leamed counsel for the ^etitioner submits fhat fhis Court, vide order dated 7th May, 20 from the date of receipt of cop^ O passed in W.P. (227) 2330/10, had granted fhe petitioner libe|rty to move apjM'opriate application before the Board of Revenue fpr summonmg of records and had also directed fhe Board of Rev^nue to pass appropriate orders on petitioner's application for vac^ting stay granted on 16.7.2009 or finally dispose of the revision ^etition within a period of 2 months of fhe order. Leamed counsel for the tpetitioner submitted that after the Ithe petitioner had submitted an if the records from the ofiice of [e did not consider that application order of the Court, though, application for summoning cj Tahsildar, the Board of Revenij nor passed any order, but, fir^ally decided the matter vide order dated 18th Jime, 2010 (Anne^ manner in which the matter ^ is highly contemptuous and is| 7th May, 2010 passed by this Cjourt. sure P-4). In his submission, tfae ras disposed of by the respondent, not in the spirit of the order dated 1-fTAi^ri is^%^^. i <^:^^1 ^ fl-HC-22 '^•-^- ;^^^^..:^ ^?I'^T r^i^ ^nt^ w^\^ w^^ Praveen ~^3[ ^l^lld^, ^Tlly4^* f^<v11<1ll< 3TI^T 'q^? TllTI^IT'^ITcF ^l, 200 ^^sr' ^n^r ^mw^f^T True it is that while d observed that it would be <+l^id41r1 'HTR^f ^ fe^ iPt^K iFT'srf^T^T^T sposing of the petition, fhis Court open for fhe petitioner to move application before the Bo^rd of Revenue wifh respect to requisition of records, merell Irrespective of whether this ^ to assail fhe correctness and because fhe application was not considered in proper persp^sctive and fhe matter was finally decided without requisitiontn^ the records, I am unable to accept that this has resulted in viol^tion of the direction of this Court. ^uld be a ground for the petitioner talidily of fhe order dated 18th June, 2010 passed by the Board ofl-Revenue, on its own merits, I am not inclined to initiate any co^itempt proceedings for fhe reasons stated above. The petition has no subs| is accordingly dismissed at thc bance. The same deserves to be and admission stage. SALs "astava ^o^; ^tt^A1>a^^ "^^ '^ F4