't. :; m^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petition No.95 of 2004 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. Vijay Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Katora Talab, Raipur (C.G.) Through the President Tej Kumar Bajaj, S/o Shri Chaith Ram Bajaj aged about 35 years, R/o KatoraTalab, Raipur (C.G.) Versus Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh Circuit Court, Raipur (C.G.) Kachra Bai, D/o Shri Bodhi Ram, R/o Village Telebandha, Raipur, Tehsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) {Writ petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India} Present: Mr. V.R. Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. None present for respondents No.1 & 2, though served. Mr. Sumit Jhanwar, Panel Lawyer for the State. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (14-11-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitutionof India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 17-6- 2003 passed by the Board of Revenue (Circuit Court Raipur) in Case No.16/B-121/2002-03, whereby the application for setting aside the order passed ex parte dated 22-12-2000 by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur in Appeal Case No.251A-6195-96 has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initiaily, ex parte order dated 22-12-2000 has been passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur and the petitioner herein has filed application for setting aside the ex parte order before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur. During the pendency of petition, the post of Commissioner has been abolished and the cases were transferred to the Board of Revenue. Learned counsel further submits that notice has not been served upon the petitioner herein, even as per allegation, notice has been served upon father of Tej Kumar, President of the petitioner Samiti. Tej Kumar has not been made party in his personal capacity, but r :..'^j '•^'^' ^..^y has been made party as President of Vijay Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti. Therefore, even if it is presumed that service has been affected upon father of Tej Kumar, it cannot be treated as service on Vijay Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti. Learned counsel also submits that service has never been affected upon Tej Kumar or on his father. 3. Considering the orders impugned and submission of the petitioner, it appears that service has not been properly affected upon the petitioner namely Vijay Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti and opportunity of hearing was sine qua non before passing any order. 4. Consequently, the order dated 17-6-2003 passed by the Board of Revenue (Circuit Court Raipur) in Case No.16/B-121/2002-03 and the order dated 22-12-2000 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur in Appeal Case No.251A-6195-96 are hereby quashed. The case is remitted back to the Court of Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur for providing opportunity of hearing to the parties and passing the order afresh. 5. Parties shall remain present before the Court of Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipuron 10-1-2012. 6. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge