1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3228/2000. : : Narain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 21.4.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Gupta for the respondent (s). Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 5.8.1998 by which the Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti dismissed appeal of petitioner and the order dated 23.9.1999 by which the Additional Collector, Sikar dismissed the revision petition filed against the aforesaid order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was very much present before the Standing Committee on 5.8.1998 and he was informed that matter shall not be taken up, but subsequently when the respondents started raising construction on the disputed 2 land, he came to know that his appeal was dismissed in default. In view of biased conduct of respondents, petitioner did not choose to file restoration application. Revision petition was filed by the petitioner raising this argument, but the learned Revisional Court dismissed the same only on the contention that petitioner did not file restoration application. He then filed civil suit. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that only remedy available to petitioner was to file restoration application, but he did not file restoration application. The order of Additional Collector dismissing the revision petition was not faulty. Moreover, the suit of petitioner is still pending. There is no infirmity or error in the impugned orders. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions. It is evident from both the impugned orders that challenge made by petitioner to the patta granted to private respondents which has not been examined by either of two authorities. Even the appeal of petitioner was dismissed in default and petitioner approached 3 District Collector. It is still open to Revisional Authority to examine the matter on merits or alternatively, he could remand the matter to Appellate Authority to decide the same on merits. The revision petition has been dismissed preliminary on two grounds; one that petitioner did not file restoration application before the Standing Committee and secondly, that he had separately filed a civil suit. But the arguments raised by petitioner that he was present before the Standing Committee, on that date even than the appeal was dismissed, has not at all been considered. It is always better that cases before the quasi judicial authority like the present one, are decided on merits rather than being decided without hearing the one or other party. The respondents have not shown at any such consideration on merit. I, therefore, deem it proper to set aside the impugned order dated 5.8.1998 passed by Standing Committee and the order dated 23.9.1999 and remand the matter to the Standing Committee by reviving the appeal of petitioner, who shall give opportunity of hearing to both the parties. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.28.