D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.545/2008 Ramesh Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: May 28, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Kuldeep Verma for the appellant. *** Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Upon consideration of the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within time. Delay of three days in filing this appeal is thus condoned and the matter is heard for admission. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment has quashed the order dated 7.4.2005 vide which the government cancelled the resolution of the Municipal Board passed in favour of the appellant without providing any opportunity of hearing to the respondent no.4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge of this Court erred in law in commenting upon the merits of the order dated 6.12.2004 passed by the learned District Judge while setting aside the order of the Government dated 7.4.2005. It was argued that the order passed by the civil court could be separately challenged in appropriate proceedings and in fact the respondent no.4 has already applied the civil court in the suit filed by the appellant for being impleaded as party. Therefore, the learned Single Judge of this Court was not justified in commenting upon the correctness of that order. It was argued that the order passed by the government was justified because the appellant is the legal heir of the original tenant and the shop in -2- dispute could not be let out in a fresh tenancy to the respondent no.4 by the municipal board behind his back. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order and also the order of the government dated 7.4.2005, we find that the occasion for the learned Single Judge to make reference of the order dated 6.12.2004 passed by the learned District Judge arose only because the government had purportedly based its order on the observations made by the learned District Judge in the said order. The comments to the extent that the order impugned dated 7.4.2005 was passed on the pretext of the order dated 6.12.2004 without hearing the respondent no.4 was, therefore, not out of place. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-