# Kumar v. Abdul Basit)

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 404
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-04-16
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kumar-v-abdul-basit-41853
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Sri Manish Kumar

U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation
of
letting Rent and Eviction)-Rule 197-Rule
22-(e)-consolidation and decision of five
different cases-pending in same courtobjection that term of Eviction used
under Section 20, while release can be
under Section 21, hence different nature
of cases can't be clubbed together-heldmisconceived-once release application
allowed-eviction of tenant automatically
there-prescribed
authority
rightly
exercises its power by consolidated all
cases-petition dismissed.

Held: Para 32

In
the
light
of
above
said
facts,
submission made by learned counsel for
petitioners that Rule 22(e) is applicable
to eviction proceeding and not to release
started on the basis of an application for
release moved by landlord under Section
21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972,
so the provisions of Section 22(e) will
not be available because the term
eviction has been used under Section 20
of the Act, is wholly misconceived
argument and rejected in view of the
facts stated above, coupled with the fact
that once an application for release
moved under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P.
Act No. XIII of 1972, then the natural
outcome of the same will be eviction of
tenant from the premises in respect to
which
release
application
has
been
moved, as such if two or more release
applications
have
been
moved
by
landlord for eviction of tenant then the
Prescribed Authority/Appellate authority
has got power to consolidate the same
as per provisions as provided under
Section 34(1)(g) read with Section 22(e)
of the Rules framed under the U.P. Act
No. XIII of 1972.
Case law discussed:
1999(1) Allahabad Rent Cases, 557

## Text

404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
Appendix-7 referred to in the order of
Sudhir Agarwal, J. shall form part of the
decree of Suit-5.

94. The Objection No. 20 of 2010,
paras 5, 7 and 8 of Application No. 24(O) of
2010 and Application No. 19(O) of 2010
are disposed of accordingly.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
SIDE SIDE
DATED:LUCKNOW 16.04.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR,J.

Rent Control No. - 33 OF 2011

Amanattullah S/O Niyamattullah and
others.

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Additional District Judge, Court No.2
Bahraich and others
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi
Sri B.R. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Manish Kumar

U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation
of
letting Rent and Eviction)-Rule 197-Rule
22-(e)-consolidation and decision of five
different cases-pending in same courtobjection that term of Eviction used
under Section 20, while release can be
under Section 21, hence different nature
of cases can't be clubbed together-heldmisconceived-once release application
allowed-eviction of tenant automatically
there-prescribed
authority
rightly
exercises its power by consolidated all
cases-petition dismissed.

Held: Para 32

In
the
light
of
above
said
facts,
submission made by learned counsel for
petitioners that Rule 22(e) is applicable
to eviction proceeding and not to release
started on the basis of an application for
release moved by landlord under Section
21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972,
so the provisions of Section 22(e) will
not be available because the term
eviction has been used under Section 20
of the Act, is wholly misconceived
argument and rejected in view of the
facts stated above, coupled with the fact
that once an application for release
moved under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P.
Act No. XIII of 1972, then the natural
outcome of the same will be eviction of
tenant from the premises in respect to
which
release
application
has
been
moved, as such if two or more release
applications
have
been
moved
by
landlord for eviction of tenant then the
Prescribed Authority/Appellate authority
has got power to consolidate the same
as per provisions as provided under
Section 34(1)(g) read with Section 22(e)
of the Rules framed under the U.P. Act
No. XIII of 1972.
Case law discussed:
1999(1) Allahabad Rent Cases, 557

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi,
learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. By means of present writ petition,
petitioners
challenged
order
dated
27.11.2010 passed by Additional District
Judge, Court no. 2, Bahraich in Rent
Appeal No. 3 of 2007 under Section 22 of
the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.

3. Facts in brief are that the
controversy in the present case relates to
six shops which are situated in Mohalla
Brahmanipura, Chowk Bazar, Bahraich,
purchased by respondent no. 2 to 5 on
28.02.1990 from erstwhile owner Sardar
Raj Jodhveer Singh, in which the
petitioners are tenants.
1 All] Amanattullah and others V. Additional District Judge, Bahraich and others
405

4.

On
04/06.11.2000,
landlord/respondents moved an application
for release of six shops under the provisions
of Section 21(1)(a) & 21(1)(b) of the U.P.
Act No. XIII of 1972. Accordingly, the
following cases registered before the
Prescribed Authority/5th Upper Civil Judge,
Bahraich.

1.Rent Control Case no. 5/2000
(Jyoti Kumar Vs. Abdul Basit).

2.Rent Control Case no. 6/2000
(Jyoti Kumar Vs. Shurur Ahmad).

3.Rent Control Case no. 7/2000
(Jyoti Kumar Rastogi Vs. Abdul Quadir).

4.Rent Control Case no. 8/2000
(Jyoti Kumar Rastogi Vs. Amanatullah).

5.Rent Control Case no. 9/2000
(Jyoti Kumar Rastogi Vs. Aziz Ahmad).

6.Rent Control Case no. 10/2000
(Jyoti Kumar Rastogi Vs. Kudubuddin).

5. On 04.10.2002 a compromise
entered between the parties in Rent
Control Case no. 10/2000 in respect to
shop no. 6, accordingly released in favour
of the landlords, so, the controversy
before the Prescribed Authority remains
in respect to 5 shops under the tenancy of
the petitioners.

6. Before the Prescribed Authority,
landlord moved an application under
Section 34(1)(g) of Act read with Rule 22
of the Rules framed under U.P. Act No.
XIII of 1972, to consolidate the five cases
i.e. Rent Control Case no. 5/2000 (Jyoti
Kumar Rastogi Vs. Abdul Basti), Rent
Control Case no. 6/2000 (Jyoti Kumar Vs.
Shurur Ahmad), Rent Control Case no.
7/2000 (Jyoti Kumar Rastogi Vs. Abdul
Quadir), Rent Control Case no. 8/2000
(Jyoti Kumar Rastogi Vs. Amanatullah),
Rent Control Case no. 9/2000 (Jyoti
Kumar Rastogi Vs. Aziz Ahmad).

7. Accordingly, the said application
registered as Paper No. Ka-17. On behalf
of tenants, objection filed inter alia stating
therein,
that
application
moved
by
landlord to consolidate five cases is
misconceived, rather the same is in
contravention
to
the
provisions
as
provided under Section 4(A) C.P.C.

8. By order dated 20.02.2002, the
Prescribed
Authority
allowed
application(paper no. Ka-17) moved by
the landlord to consolidate five cases.

9. Needless to mention herein that
order passed by Prescribed Authority for
consolidate the cases not challenged by
the petitioners and by means of judgment
and order dated 29.10.2010, Prescribed
Authority/5th
Upper
Civil
Judge,
Bahraich allowed all the five release
applications of landlord moved under
Section 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) of the U.P.
Act No. XIII of 1972.

10. Aggrieved by the same,
petitioners filed Rent Appeal(registered as
Rent Appeals nos. 3 of 2007 to 7 of 2007)
under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. XIII
of 1972.

11. During the pendency of the Rent
Appeals before Appellate Authority, on
behalf of petitioners an application moved
on 11.03.2010(Annexure no. 7) praying
therein that all appeals shall be delinked
and heard separately to which objection
filed on behalf of landlord-respondents on
16.09.2010 (Annexure no. 8).
406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

12. Appellate Authority after
hearing on the point of issue by order
dated 27.11.2010 rejected application
moved on behalf of the petitioners to hear
the appeals separately and further ordered
that all the five appeals will be
consolidated and heard together and
appeal no. 04 of 2007 will be leading
appeal.

13. Aggrieved by order dated
27.11.2010
passed
by
Appellate
Authority/Additional
District
Judge,
Court no. 2, Bahraich, present writ
petition has been filed by the petitioners.

14. Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi,
learned counsel for the petitioners while
assailing impugned order submits that six
separate proceedings have been initiated
by the respondent no. 2-landlord for
release of the six different shops against
the petitioners in which the defence of
each tenants are different, so if the matter
in questions are consolidated and heard
together, the petitioners will deprive the
right to put their defence in respect to
comparative hardship and personal need.

15. Sri Tripathi, learned counsel for
petitioners further submits that the term
'eviction' has been used under Section 20
of the U.P. Urban Buildings(Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1072,
while the term 'release' has been used
under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban
buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972, and as such both the
terms are of different meanings, the same
cannot be clubbed together for the
purpose of assuming of powers under
Rule-22(e) of the U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Rules, 1972. So, respondent no. 1 while
passing
impugned
order,
committed
manifest error of law and jurisdiction in
wrongly assuming of powers of Rule22(e)
of
the
U.P.
Urban
Buildings(Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Rules, 1972 which is not meant
for proceedings of 'release'.

16. On behalf of the petitioners it is
also argued that impugned order passed
by respondent no. 1 thereby consolidating
all appeals to be heard together is an
action without jurisdiction and the same
has been passed wrongly assuming the
power under Sub Section (8) of Section
34
of
the
U.P.
Urban
Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972, read with Rule-22(e) of the
U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972,
hence impugned order dated 27.10.2010,
is void-ab-initio, liable to be set aside.

17. He further submits that Code of
Civil Procedure are not applicable to the
proceedings of 'release' under U.P. Act
No. XIII of 1972 in general, but the same
is specifically applicable for the purposes
prescribed under Section 34 of the U.P.
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, but this
aspect of the matter has completely been
overlooked by respondent no. 1 while
passing the impugned order, so the same
is liable to be set aside.

18. I have heard learned counsel for
petitioners and gone through the record.

19. So far as factual matrix of the
present case are concerned, it is not in
dispute that respondent no. 2 is landlordowner of the shops in question, under the
tenancy of the petitioners situated in
Mohalla Brahmanipura, Chowk Bazar,
Bahraich in respect to which release
1 All] Amanattullah and others V. Additional District Judge, Bahraich and others
407
applications moved by the landlordsrespondent nos. 2 to 5 under Section
21(1)(a) read with 21(1)(b) of the Act
separately and in addition to the said
release
applications
one
application
moved in respect to the shop under the
tenancy of one Sri Kutubuddin in respect
to which a compromise entered between
the parties on 04.10.2002 and released in
favour of the landlord.

20. Before Prescribed Authority
landlord
moved
an
application
to
consolidate the Rent case Nos. 5 of 2000
to 9 of 2000, under Section 34(1)(g) of
the Rent Act read with Rule 22 of the
Rules framed under U.P. Act No. XIII of
1972, to which objections filed by the
tenants-petitioners, allowed vide order
dated 02.02.2002 (Annexure no. 4) by the
Prescribed Authority, not challenged
before any higher Forum.

21. Subsequently, thereafter all the
rent cases consolidated, heard together
and decided by common judgment dated
29.10.2010 by which all the release
applications moved by the respondentslandlords are allowed. Aggrieved by the
same, five Rent Appeals filed namely
Rent Control Appeal No. 3 of 2007 to 7 of
2007 by the petitioners before the
respondent no. 1.

22. On 11.03.2010 (Annexure no. 7)
an application moved in Rent Control
Appeal No. 3 of 2007 to delink all appeals
and heard separately to which objection
filed by the landlord. After hearing the
parties, rejected by means of order dated
27.10.2010
passed
by
Appellate
Authority/Additional Civil Judge, Court
no. 2, Baharich holding that all the five
appeals will be heard together and Rent
Control Appeal No. 3 of 2007 will be
leading one.

23. Now, in order to decide the
controversy involved in the present case, I
feel it is appropriate to have a glance to
the relevant provisions as provided under
the Rent Control Act and Rules framed
therein which governs the field in
question, quoted herein under :-

"21: Proceedings for release of
building under occupation of tenant-

(1) The Prescribed Authority may on
an application of the landlord in that
behalf order the eviction of a tenant form
the building under tenancy or any
specified part thereof if it is satisfied that
any of the following grounds exists ,
namely-

(a) that the building is bona- fide
required either in in its existing from or
after demolition and new construction by
the landlord for occupation by himself or
any member of his family, or any person
for whose benefit it is held by him, either
for residential purposes or for purposes of
any profession, trade, or calling or where
the landlord is the trustee of a public
charitable trust , for the objects of the
trust:

Section 34 (1) (g) of the Act
provides as under:-

"Powers of various authorities and
procedure to be followed by them.-(1)
The District Magistrate , the prescribed
authority or any [ appellate or revising
authority] shall for the purpose of holding
any inquiry or hearing [ any appeal or
revision] under this Act have the same
powers as are vested in the Civil Court
408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
under the code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(Act no. V of 1908), when trying a suit ,
in respect of the following matters,
namely-

(g) any other matter which may
prescribed."

24. Rule 22(e) of U.P. Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting , Rent
and Eviction) Rules 1972 (hereinafter
referred as an 'Rules') , the relevant
portion quoted herein under:-

"22. Power under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 [Section 34(1) (g).- The
District Magistrate , the Prescribed
Authority or the Appellate Authority
shall, for the purposes of holding any
inquiry or hearing any appeal or revision
under the Act, shall have the same powers
as are vested in the Civil Court under the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when
trying a suit , in respect of the following
matters, namely-

* * * * * * *

(e) the power of consolidate two or
more case of eviction by the same
landlord against different tenants;"

Section 38 of the Act provides as
under:-

"38. Act to override T.P. Act and
Civil Procedure Code.- The provisions of
this Act shall have effect notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith contained
in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (
Act no. IV of 1882) or in the Code of
Civil Procedure 1908."

25. In view of the above provisions
under U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972, the
provisions which have to be considered is
Order IVA of the Code of Civil Procedure
, 1908 ( inserted by U.P. Act no. 57 of
1976 with effect from 1.1.1977) while
deciding the present case quoted as
under:-

"Order IVA- Consolidation of suits
and proceedings- When two or more suits
or proceedings are pending in the same
court, and the court is of opinion that if it
expedient in the interest of justice, it may
be order direct their joint trial, where
upon all such suits and proceedings may
be decided upon the evidence in all or any
of such suits or proceedings."

26. Now, reverting to the facts of the
present case submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the
term 'eviction' has been used under
Section
20
of
the
U.P.
Urban
Buildings(Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1072, while the term
'release' has been used under Section 21
of the U.P. Urban buildings (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972,
and as such both the terms are of different
meanings, the same cannot be clubbed
together for the purpose of assuming of
powers under Rule-22(e) of the U.P.
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,
Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 so,
respondent no. 1 while passing impugned
order, committed manifest error of law
and jurisdiction in wrongly assuming of
powers of Rule-22(e) of the U.P. Urban
Buildings(Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Rules, 1972 which is not meant
for proceedings of 'release', is wholly
misconceived and incorrect argument
because intention and object of the
legislature while framing Section 34 of
the U.P. Act No. XIII is to lay down the
powers of various authorities in respect of
1 All] Amanattullah and others V. Additional District Judge, Bahraich and others
409
certain specified matters and to prescribe
procedure for conducing the proceedings
contemplated by this Act, which lays
down a special procedure to be followed
in the proceedings before the District
Magistrate, the prescribed authority, or
the appellate authority while holding an
enquiry, or hearing the appeal under this
Act as the case may be. This Section is a
complete code so far as the powers of,
and procedure to be followed by, the
authorities under this Act are concerned.
Section 34 of the Act and Rule 22 of the
Rules framed under the Act are both
procedural and they do not enlarge the
powers conferred on the Prescribed
Authority under Section 21(1)(a) or (b) of
the Act.

27. Further, the provisions of Sub
Section (1) of 34 of the Act to be
interpreted in such a manner so that the
object of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 may
not be defeated and correct interpretation
of the same is to the effect that Section 34
confers on the District Magistrate, the
prescribed authority and an appellate
authority, for hearing matter under the
Act, same powers as are vested in the
civil Court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, when trying the suit, in respect
of specified matters.

28. From reading of the Act and
Rules, it is clear that legislature wanted to
give specific power to authorities under
the Act and Rules, one of the power is
given under Rule 22(e) of Rules confers a
power of consolidating two or more cases
of eviction by the same landlord against
different tenants. Whenever cases are
consolidated, the evidence on record is to
be read in all the consolidated cases. The
provisions of Rule 22(e) of the Rules have
been made in order to avoid duplication
and multiplicity of the proceedings. The
provisions in question specifically permit
the consolidation of cases. Hence, there
would be no illegality if two cases are
consolidated keeping in view the said
facts and provisions as provided under
Section 4(A) of the Code of Civil
Procedure which gives sole discretion to
the court before whom two trails are
pending to consolidate the same. In the
interest of justice, however, it is settle
proposition of law that if a discretion is
vested in a court/authority, the same could
not be exercised in a arbitrary manner but
should be exercised judicially after proper
application
of
mind,
taking
into
consideration the fact and circumstances
of the case so that no parties can suffer
from the discretion so exercised by the
court.

29. The provisions as provided
under Section 22(e) of the rules has been
considered in the case of Kallu Vs. IX
Addl. District Judge, Kanpur and others
(supra)
where
the
landlord
moved
applications for release against two
tenants for consolidating and this Court
has held as under:-

"Whenever cases are consolidated,
the evidence on record is to be read in all
the cases which are consolidated. The
provisions of Rule 22(e) have been made
in order to avoid duplication of evidence
and multiplicity of the proceeding. These
provisions
specifically
permit
the
consolidation of the case as it has been
done in the court below, consolidating the
two cases into one. It may be mentioned
that the petitioner did not even the
objections
the
application
for
consolidation of the cases. In the
circumstances, the second objection of the
learned counsel is also over-ruled."
410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

30. In the case of Abdul Rahman
Vs. Ist Addi tonal Civil Judge(Senior
Division)
Moradabad
and
another,1999(1) Allahabad Rent Cases,
557 in para -3 it is held as under :-

"It is true that under Rule 22(e):-

"22. Power under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, Section34(1)(g):- The
District
Magistrate,
the
Prescribed
Authority or the Appellate of Revising
Authority shall, for the purpose of holding
any inquiry or hearing any appeal or
revision under the Act, shall have the
same powers as are vested in the Civil
Court under the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, when trying a suit, in respect of the
following matters , namely-

(e) the power of consolidate two or
more cases of eviction by the same
landlord against different tenants.

(f) The power referred to in Section
151 and 152 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 to made any order for
the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse
of process of the authority concerned,
gives power to consolidate cases filed by
one landlord against different tenants.
This may held in assessing the bona fide
need and comparative hardship. The
actual accommodation with the landlord
may be known. The Rules 22(e) does not
empower the Prescribed Authority to
consolidate the cases filed by different
landlords against the same tenant. But
this does not mean that Prescribed
Authority in no other case can consolidate
the case. All Courts and Tribunals have
inherent power to prevent the abuse of
process of law [Busching Schmitz Vs.
Menghani, AIR 1977 SC 1569 para 2223; devise its own procedure subject to
statutory prohibition [ Prabhakara Vs. D.
Panoara, AIR 1976 SC 1803 ( para 13) ]
So has the authorities and the Courts
under the Act.The Authorities and the
Court have inherent power not because of
any legislature but because of their nature
and constitution [ Indian Bank Vs. Stayam
Finre(P) Ltd., 1996(5) SCC 5 (22)]. They
have power to pass order in the interest of
justice [ Gridlays Bank Vs. Central Govt.
Industries
Tribunal,
AIR
1981
SC
606(para6)] or follow procedure unless
prohibited [Devendra Nath v. ADJ, Agra,
1977 ARC 475] by law. Rule 22(f) [Kindly
see
foot
no.2]
specifically
confers
inherent power to make any order for
ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of
the authority concern. The Act does not
prohibit consolidation of two cases
against same tenant in respect of same
premises by different landlords. The only
limitation is it should be in interest of
justice or to prevent the abuse of the
process of law."

Further in para-4 in the case of
Abdul Rahman (Supra) it is also held as
under:-

"It is for Prescribed Authority to
consider whether it is in interest of justice
to consolidate the case or not under
inherent powers."

31. In the light of the fact , the
position which emerges out, in nut shell,
that if two cases are pending before the
same court for trial then the court
concerned in the interest of justice have a
discretion to consolidate the same , the
said discretion is to be exercised judicially
after proper application of mind not in a
mechanical manner and no party can
claim order thereof as matter of right to
1 All] Anis Ahmad @ Chand Babu V. State of U.P. and others
411
get both the case consolidated on his
request.

32. In the light of above said facts,
submission made by learned counsel for
petitioners that Rule 22(e) is applicable to
eviction proceeding and not to release
started on the basis of an application for
release moved by landlord under Section
21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972,
so the provisions of Section 22(e) will not
be available because the term eviction has
been used under Section 20 of the Act, is
wholly
misconceived
argument
and
rejected in view of the facts stated above,
coupled with the fact that once an
application for release moved under
Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII
of 1972, then the natural outcome of the
same will be eviction of tenant from the
premises in respect to which release
application has been moved, as such if
two or more release applications have
been moved by landlord for eviction of
tenant
then
the
Prescribed
Authority/Appellate authority has got
power to consolidate the same as per
provisions as provided under Section
34(1)(g) read with Section 22(e) of the
Rules framed under the U.P. Act No. XIII
of 1972.

33. For the foregoing reasons, writ
petition filed by the petitioners lacks merit
and is dismissed.

34. No order as to costs.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.04.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA,J.

Review Petition Defective No. - 95 of 2011

Anis Ahmad @ Chand Babu S/O Habib
Ahmad ( M/S 221/2011 )
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Secretary Food & Civil
Supplies and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sachin Srivastava

Constitution of India-Article 226-Review
Application-on ground of concealment f
fact-petitioner
got
interim
orderallegations
found
established-interim
order
discharged-Petition
itself
dismissed for concealment of material
fact.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N.Shukla, J.)

The applicant has filed the present
application to review the order dated
13.1.2011 on the ground that the
petitioner succeeded to get the order on
the basis of concealment as pursuant to
the order impugned dated 16.6.2010
passed by the learned Commissioner,
Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, the enquiry
had
been
concluded
by
the
Sub
Divisional Magistrate Nanpara on 22nd
September, 2010, whereas the petitioner
instituted the petition on 11.1.2011 and
succeeded to get an interim order by this
Court without disclosing the facts of the
enquiry.

In view of the aforesaid facts, I am
of the view that once the order
impugned
passed
by
the
learned
Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal,