WP(C) 73/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioner, who is the settlement holder of No.4 Bihpuria C.S. shop, by the present petition has challenged the order dated 30.12.2010 passed by the Board of Revenue in Appeal Case No.6E(L)/2010, wherein and whereunder the settl ement made in favour of the writ petitioner has been set aside. The said C.S. shop was settled in favour of the writ petitioner vide ord er dated 20.02.2010 for a period of 3(three) years, commencing from 01.04.2010 t o 31.03.2013. The order of settlement was put to challenge by the respondent No. 4 by filing an appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was registered and numb ered as Appeal Case No.6E(L)/2010. The said order was initially interfered with by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 26.04.2010, on the basis of the order d ated 18.03.2010 passed in Appeal Case No.1E(L)/2010, even without issuing any no tice to the settlement holder, which was challenged before this Court by the pre sent petitioner in WP(C) No.2853/2010. This Court vide order dated 12.10.2010 pa ssed in the said writ petition set aside the said order dated 26.04.2010, as the order was passed without issuing any notice and without hearing the settlement holder and directing the Board of Revenue to decide the appeal afresh in accorda nce with law. The petitioner thereafter entered appearance before the Board of R evenue and filed the objection. In the said objection the plea of limitation was also taken up apart from the other grounds praying for dismissal of the appeal preferred by the respondent No.4. The Board of Revenue vide judgment and order d ated 30.12.2010 has set aside the order of settlement dated 20.02.2010 passed in favour of the writ petitioner. Hence the present writ petition. Heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, Ms. S. Seal , learned standing counsel for the respondent No.1, Mr. Handique, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and Mr. P.K.R. Choudhury, learned coun sel appearing for the respondent No.4. Mr. Baruah, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner referring to the obje ction filed by him in the aforesaid appeal case before the Board of Revenue and also the judgment and order dated 30.12.2010 passed in the said appeal has submi tted that though the petitioner took up the plea of limitation, such plea was no t considered by the Board of Revenue. It has also been submitted that though the Board of Revenue in the judgment impugned has observed that the argument of the learned counsel appearing for both the appellants and the respondents were hear d, in the judgment the Board of Revenue did not take into consideration the argu ments and has even not recorded the arguments made by the writ petitioner, who i s the respondent in the said proceeding and also not dealt with such arguments a s advanced. The learned Sr. counsel, therefore, submits that the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue may be set aside and the matter may be remanded for fre sh disposal. Mr. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, su pporting the judgment and order dated 30.12.2010, has submitted that since the B oard of Revenue has decided the appeal on merit, it amounts rejection of plea ta ken by the writ petitioner in the objection filed. The learned counsel further s ubmits that the Board of Revenue has interfered with the order of settlement mad e in favour of the writ petitioner being satisfied, from the record produced bef ore it, that such an order is illegal being contrary to the provisions of Assam Excise Rules, 1945. It appears from the objection filed by the writ petitioner before the Bo ard of Revenue in the appeal preferred by the respondent No.4 that the plea of l imitation was taken up apart from some other grounds, while praying for dismissa l of the appeal. It also appears from the impugned judgment and order dated 30.1 2.2010 passed by the Board of Revenue that such plea of limitation though raised , has not been decided. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 that since the Board of Revenue proceeded to decide the appeal o n merit, it amounts to rejection of the plea of limitation cannot be accepted as the finding has to be recorded by the Board of Revenue on such plea taken by th e writ petitioner, which has not been done. It also appears from the said judgme nt that the Board of Revenue has observed that the argument of the learned couns el appearing for the parties was heard. The Board of Revenue, however, has not d iscussed the arguments as advanced by the respondent. It has only noticed the ap pellant’s case. The reason for rejection of the arguments advanced by the respon dent, therefore, has not been recorded in the judgment and order passed, though the Board of Revenue is duty bound to notice the arguments as advanced by the pa rties and give reasons for acceptance or otherwise of such arguments. In view of the above, the judgment and order dated 30.12.2010 passed by the Board of Revenue in Appeal Case No.6E(L)/2010 is set aside. The matter is re manded to the Board of Revenue for deciding afresh. The parties are directed to appear before the Board of Revenue on 19.07.2011 for taking necessary order. The Board of Revenue shall make all endeavour to decide the appeal in accordance wi th law within 3(three) months from the date of appearance of the parties as fixe d by this Court. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent as indicated abov e. No costs. It is needless to say that since the matter is remanded to the Board of Revenue, no opinion is expressed on the merit of the case.