Ramprakash Gupta Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Others
been allowed by the Minister on 26.8.2003, but the authorities have overlooked the said order and passed another order on 17.1.2005 dismissing the revision of the appellant. It was the submission of the appellant that the act of overlooking the order dated 26.8.2003 and passing a fresh order, amounts to a review not permissible in law. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the order dated 26.8.2003 was not placed on the record. A writ appeal was filed thereafter, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.4. The only point which was canvassed before the Division Bench of the High Court was that an order had earlier been passed in favour of the appellant by the Minister on 26.08.2003. On this issue the Learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the so called order dated 26.08.2003, which was relied upon by the appellant, did not contain the case number; the appellant had admittedly appeared before the Minister which led to the passing of the order dated 17.01.2005 and if there was an order dated 26.08.2003, the appellant would have filed an affidavit deposing to the aforesaid fact.5. The Division Bench of the High Court, in order to satisfy itself, whether an order was passed by the Minister on 26.08.2003 called for an additional affidavit by the State which was filed. The order of the Division Bench indicates that the records were perused by the Court. After perusing the record, the Division Bench observed that the entire process was riddled with irregularities and that the order sheet relating to the so called order dated 26.08.2003 contained interpolations. The Division Bench consequently arrived at the conclusion that the so called order dated 26.08.2003 had never seen the light of the day; it was never processed or endorsed by the Department and, as a matter of fact, it was only on 17.01.2005 that an order was passed in revision by the Minister, rejecting the revision.6. The submission which has been urged before the Court in support of the appeal is that the then Minister had initially, during the course of the hearing of the revision, adjourned the proceedings on 28.07.2003. However, subsequently, an order was passed by the Minister on 26.08.2003. Hence, it was urged that the mere issuance of the order was only a formality and hence there was no occasion for the succeeding Minister to pass a fresh order on 17.01.2005. It appears that the elections had intervened in the meantime.7. In the counter affidavit which has been filed in response to the proceedings on behalf of the first, second and third respondents, the factual position has been succinctly summarized. We extract below the relevant averments contained in the counter affidavit which read as follows :"(i) Insofar as the Note Sheets are concerned, the interpolation and overwriting is evident even to the naked eye which can be seen at page 66 of the SLP Paper Book. From the Note Sheet dated 28.07.2003 it is clear that the record from the concerned office was awaited and the matter was marked to the Ld. Minister for hearing. However, in absence of the record, hearing could not have taken place.(ii) In the Note sheet dated 28.07.2003, the initial order is Advocates present. The hearing in the matter is adjourned. Put up for orders". However, subsequently the words hearing and adjourned (original in Hindi) have been scored out and the words put up for orders are added.(iii) Subsequently, another date and order seems to have been inserted in the Note Sheet which says order passed. Inform accordingly.(iv) In respect of the order dated 26.08.2003, it is pertinent to note that it does not bear any case number.(v) Further, there is no date of issuance, neither is the order available in the original record.(vi) It is also important to note that any order signed by the Minister is generally issued by the Department. In a copy of the so called order dated 26.08.2003, as filed by the Petitioner before the Honble High Court, the last page bears the name of the Additional Secretary, but without any signatures. Surprisingly, the copy filed in the SLP Paper Book at page 55 does not contain that page and it appears that the same has been deliberately left out while filing the petition...."8. We have perused a photocopy of the record which has been annexed to the present proceedings. The so called order dated 26.08.2003 does not contain any reference to the case number. That apart, the order sheet contains several interpolations. Initially the matter was marked to the Minister but since the record was awaited from the concerned office, the hearing could not have taken place. The note sheet dated 28.07.2003 contains an initial endorsement to the effect that the advocates were present but the hearing of the case was adjourned. Subsequently, these words have been scored out and the words "put up for orders" have been added. The Division Bench of the High Court after a meticulous consideration of the record and upon evaluating the affidavit which was filed by the State, came to the conclusion that so called order dated 26.08.2003 was no order in the eye of law. After perusing the record, we are satisfied that this finding of fact by the High Court is correct as is borne out of the record. The manner in which the matter proceeded before the Minister in revision is clearly indicative of the fact that there was no valid order dated 26.08.2003 passed by the Minister in the revision. To say the least, the record indicates a serious interpolation of the proceedings. In this background, the High Court was justified in rejecting the contention of the appellant that there was a valid order dated 26.08.2003 which enured to his benefit.9. Since no other submission was urged before the Division Bench of the High Court, the challenge to the order of the High Court lacks merit.
0[ds]We have perused a photocopy of the record which has been annexed to the present proceedings. The so called order dated 26.08.2003 does not contain any reference to the case number. That apart, the order sheet contains several interpolations. Initially the matter was marked to the Minister but since the record was awaited from the concerned office, the hearing could not have taken place. The note sheet dated 28.07.2003 contains an initial endorsement to the effect that the advocates were present but the hearing of the case was adjourned. Subsequently, these words have been scored out and the words "put up for orders" have been added. The Division Bench of the High Court after a meticulous consideration of the record and upon evaluating the affidavit which was filed by the State, came to the conclusion that so called order dated 26.08.2003 was no order in the eye of law. After perusing the record, we are satisfied that this finding of fact by the High Court is correct as is borne out of the record. The manner in which the matter proceeded before the Minister in revision is clearly indicative of the fact that there was no valid order dated 26.08.2003 passed by the Minister in the revision. To say the least, the record indicates a serious interpolation of the proceedings. In this background, the High Court was justified in rejecting the contention of the appellant that there was a valid order dated 26.08.2003 which enured to his benefit.Since no other submission was urged before the Division Bench of the High Court, the challenge to the order of the High Court lacks merit.
### Instruction:
Decide if the appeal in the case proceeding is more likely to be successful (1) or unsuccessful (0), and then justify your decision by focusing on essential sentences in the document.

### Input:
been allowed by the Minister on 26.8.2003, but the authorities have overlooked the said order and passed another order on 17.1.2005 dismissing the revision of the appellant. It was the submission of the appellant that the act of overlooking the order dated 26.8.2003 and passing a fresh order, amounts to a review not permissible in law. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the order dated 26.8.2003 was not placed on the record. A writ appeal was filed thereafter, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.4. The only point which was canvassed before the Division Bench of the High Court was that an order had earlier been passed in favour of the appellant by the Minister on 26.08.2003. On this issue the Learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the so called order dated 26.08.2003, which was relied upon by the appellant, did not contain the case number; the appellant had admittedly appeared before the Minister which led to the passing of the order dated 17.01.2005 and if there was an order dated 26.08.2003, the appellant would have filed an affidavit deposing to the aforesaid fact.5. The Division Bench of the High Court, in order to satisfy itself, whether an order was passed by the Minister on 26.08.2003 called for an additional affidavit by the State which was filed. The order of the Division Bench indicates that the records were perused by the Court. After perusing the record, the Division Bench observed that the entire process was riddled with irregularities and that the order sheet relating to the so called order dated 26.08.2003 contained interpolations. The Division Bench consequently arrived at the conclusion that the so called order dated 26.08.2003 had never seen the light of the day; it was never processed or endorsed by the Department and, as a matter of fact, it was only on 17.01.2005 that an order was passed in revision by the Minister, rejecting the revision.6. The submission which has been urged before the Court in support of the appeal is that the then Minister had initially, during the course of the hearing of the revision, adjourned the proceedings on 28.07.2003. However, subsequently, an order was passed by the Minister on 26.08.2003. Hence, it was urged that the mere issuance of the order was only a formality and hence there was no occasion for the succeeding Minister to pass a fresh order on 17.01.2005. It appears that the elections had intervened in the meantime.7. In the counter affidavit which has been filed in response to the proceedings on behalf of the first, second and third respondents, the factual position has been succinctly summarized. We extract below the relevant averments contained in the counter affidavit which read as follows :"(i) Insofar as the Note Sheets are concerned, the interpolation and overwriting is evident even to the naked eye which can be seen at page 66 of the SLP Paper Book. From the Note Sheet dated 28.07.2003 it is clear that the record from the concerned office was awaited and the matter was marked to the Ld. Minister for hearing. However, in absence of the record, hearing could not have taken place.(ii) In the Note sheet dated 28.07.2003, the initial order is Advocates present. The hearing in the matter is adjourned. Put up for orders". However, subsequently the words hearing and adjourned (original in Hindi) have been scored out and the words put up for orders are added.(iii) Subsequently, another date and order seems to have been inserted in the Note Sheet which says order passed. Inform accordingly.(iv) In respect of the order dated 26.08.2003, it is pertinent to note that it does not bear any case number.(v) Further, there is no date of issuance, neither is the order available in the original record.(vi) It is also important to note that any order signed by the Minister is generally issued by the Department. In a copy of the so called order dated 26.08.2003, as filed by the Petitioner before the Honble High Court, the last page bears the name of the Additional Secretary, but without any signatures. Surprisingly, the copy filed in the SLP Paper Book at page 55 does not contain that page and it appears that the same has been deliberately left out while filing the petition...."8. We have perused a photocopy of the record which has been annexed to the present proceedings. The so called order dated 26.08.2003 does not contain any reference to the case number. That apart, the order sheet contains several interpolations. Initially the matter was marked to the Minister but since the record was awaited from the concerned office, the hearing could not have taken place. The note sheet dated 28.07.2003 contains an initial endorsement to the effect that the advocates were present but the hearing of the case was adjourned. Subsequently, these words have been scored out and the words "put up for orders" have been added. The Division Bench of the High Court after a meticulous consideration of the record and upon evaluating the affidavit which was filed by the State, came to the conclusion that so called order dated 26.08.2003 was no order in the eye of law. After perusing the record, we are satisfied that this finding of fact by the High Court is correct as is borne out of the record. The manner in which the matter proceeded before the Minister in revision is clearly indicative of the fact that there was no valid order dated 26.08.2003 passed by the Minister in the revision. To say the least, the record indicates a serious interpolation of the proceedings. In this background, the High Court was justified in rejecting the contention of the appellant that there was a valid order dated 26.08.2003 which enured to his benefit.9. Since no other submission was urged before the Division Bench of the High Court, the challenge to the order of the High Court lacks merit.

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
We have perused a photocopy of the record which has been annexed to the present proceedings. The so called order dated 26.08.2003 does not contain any reference to the case number. That apart, the order sheet contains several interpolations. Initially the matter was marked to the Minister but since the record was awaited from the concerned office, the hearing could not have taken place. The note sheet dated 28.07.2003 contains an initial endorsement to the effect that the advocates were present but the hearing of the case was adjourned. Subsequently, these words have been scored out and the words "put up for orders" have been added. The Division Bench of the High Court after a meticulous consideration of the record and upon evaluating the affidavit which was filed by the State, came to the conclusion that so called order dated 26.08.2003 was no order in the eye of law. After perusing the record, we are satisfied that this finding of fact by the High Court is correct as is borne out of the record. The manner in which the matter proceeded before the Minister in revision is clearly indicative of the fact that there was no valid order dated 26.08.2003 passed by the Minister in the revision. To say the least, the record indicates a serious interpolation of the proceedings. In this background, the High Court was justified in rejecting the contention of the appellant that there was a valid order dated 26.08.2003 which enured to his benefit.Since no other submission was urged before the Division Bench of the High Court, the challenge to the order of the High Court lacks merit.
