IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9723 of 2009 SUMESHWAR PRASAD SON OF KAPILDEO SINGH, RESIDNET OF VILLAGE GOPALGANJ, P.S. ISLAMPUR, DISTRICT NALANDA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER, AGRICULTURE BIHAR, PATN.A 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA. 3. SUBDIVISIONAL OFFICER, GAYA. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NEEM CHAK BATHANI, GAYA. 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, ATRI, GAYA. 6. DEO SHARAN SINGH YADAV SON OF LATE KARAMDHARI SINGH YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHATAUNI, P.S. NEEMCHAK BATHANI, DISTRICT GAYA. ----------- 6 19/02/2010 Petitioner has a reason to approach this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 5.3.2009 which has been communicated to the petitioner under the signature of the Sub-divisional Officer of Neemchak Bathani in the district of Gaya. By virtue of this communication the day of holding of cattle fair in the raiyati land of the petitioner stands changed from Tuesday to Thursday. According to the petitioner, this decision contained in Annexure-4 needs interference because it would amount to review of an earlier order already passed in favour of the petitioner which is annexure-1 to the writ application. The decision contained in Annexure-1 dated - 2 - 12.7.2007 became the subject matter of challenge in a writ application filed on behalf of private respondent no. 6. The said writ application was dismissed as it was withdrawn by respondent no. 6. This fact is corroborated by the order dated 22.7.2008 contained in Annexure-3. In other words the decision taken by the Sub-divisional Officer in favour of the petitioner contained in annexure-1 stood final. There is a clash of interest between the petitioner and the private respondent no. 6 because initially he also has been holding a cattle fair in his raiyati land on Tuesday. Therefore, the decision of the Sub-divisional Magistrate had a bearing on his profitability or commercial interest. Not satisfied with the past proceeding and the decision, it is alleged by the petitioner that respondent no. 6 pulled some strings and annexure- 4 is the culmination of that effort. Learned counsel for respondent no. 6 has tried to justify the order by saying that Annexure-4 has been passed on certain decisions taken by the District Magistrate as well as the Commissioner of the Division. It is such a decision on due consideration that annexure-4 has come to be passed. - 3 - Annexure-4 does not merit any interference. This Court has certain difficulty in accepting such a proposition because even a review of administrative decision has to be done within the parameters and powers of review which can be exercised. There is no doubt about the fact that decision was taken by the Sub-divisional Magistrate in 2007. The validity of such decision stood the ground even on scrutiny before the High Court because private respondent no. 6 did not succeed in getting it set aside or interfered at that stage. Now some thing has been innovated which has the effect of reviewing the earlier order and that too without hearing the petitioner on the issue. The petitioner has made out a case. Annexure-4 stands quashed. This writ application is allowed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)