Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

The matter comes up on a misc. application filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for expunging the remarks made against the applicant Mahaveer Singh in the order dated 02/01/2018.

2. The applicant, who is a Member of Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer has stated that this Court in its order dated 02/08/2018 passed following order:—

“On examining the order passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer dated 4.6.2018, it is noticed that the learned member-Shri Mahaveer Singh of Board of Revenue has not given any reason for admission and stay of the interim order dated 25.5.2018 of the RAA and has virtually allowed the appeal at the said stage with further directions to the Subordinate Court for implementation.

Thus, by the said order the appeal before RAA has become redundant, the judicial work which the learned member, Board of Revenue is required to be performed has not been performed judiciously and resulted in chaotic situation. This Court deprecates the practice of the Board of Revenue in allowing the appeal in the aforesaid manner at the stage of first hearing itself giving reasons and findings. It is to be noted that the counsel for the petitioner had appeared as a caveator and no arguments have been noted or finding arrived before passing of such an order, whereby the interim order passed by Status quo has further stayed which has resulted in changing position of land which is a subject matter of issue to be decided by the RAA.

On account of the order passed by the Board of Revenue, the land had been handed over for possession to the respondent who is one of the defendant in the appeal pending before the RAA. The Chairman Board of Revenue and Principal Secretary shall take appropriate steps with regard to the procedure adopted by the concerned Member of the Board of Revenue and would initiate departmental proceedings for the said purpose against him and report to this court and submit compliance report to this court.”

3. The applicant states that such remarks were made without notice to him and adversely affect character, reputation and service career of the applicant and submits that the said remarks have been made because full facts and background of the case were not placed before the Court. The applicant has thereafter given details of facts of the case and the various orders passed in relation to the facts of the case. Detailed facts have been mentioned including copies of the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, High Court and the proceedings undertaken by both the parties to the writ petition. All the facts have been mentioned to support the order which he has passed on 04/06/2018 which was subject matter of examination by this Court and in this manner, the applicant states that the order passed by him was correct and there was no occasion for this Court to have made the remarks, as noted above which are stated to be disparaging and have been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Opportunity ought to have been given to explain the situation in which he had passed the order and there is nothing on record to justify the remark made against the applicant by the Court.

4. It is stated that the Revenue Appellate Authority was not justified to have granted the stay order and the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was stayed by the applicant, was in gross violation of the previous orders of the High Court and it was his duty to see that the High Court orders are not disobeyed and thus, he was justified in staying the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 25.5.2018 bypassing the order on 4.6.2018.

5. It is also stated that there was no necessity for passing disparaging remarks against the applicant.

6. The applicant also submits that the remark of the Court of the applicant having not given any reason for admission and stay was uncalled for as it is normal practice of the Board not to give reasons for admission and interim st