The main legal point established is that parties must have legal standing and grounds for maintaining a review petition, and individuals must have legal standing to challenge eviction orders and seek interference in concluded eviction proceedings.

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.

Defect No. 1 in Civil Review No. 46 of 2016 is ignored as counsel for the review petitioner submits that he had preferred an intervention application in W.P.C. No. 5228 of 2015, which was however closed on account of withdrawal of the writ petition by the writ petitioner therein vide order dated 22.7.2016. Surviving defect no.2 however is not being ignored. Respondent no.5 be deleted from the array of parties as it is not a party in the connected writ petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. In order to address the grievances raised by the individual petitioners which has a thread of commonality in each of the writ petitions, the relevant prayer and certain facts there in are being discussed separately.

4. Civil Review No. 46 of 2016: –

The review petitioner has sought review of the order dated 22.7.2016 passed in W.P.C. No. 5228 of 2015 where under the writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn at the instance of the writ petitioner, on the grounds that its intervention application being I.A. No 4299 of 2016 was impliedly rejected. This review petitioner, though a party in the eviction proceedings before the Court of Estate Officer, Indian School of Mines (I.S.M.), Dhanbad in Eviction Case No. 1 of 2013(Annexure-1) and Misc. Appeal No.24 of 2014 (Annexure-2) arising there from, judgments dated 14.8.2014 and 27.7.2015 respectively, did not assail the orders/judgments in question, if aggrieved therefrom. It was a party in those proceedings apart from Indian School of Learning, Jharia which was writ petitioner in W.P.C. No. 5228 of 2015 i.e., a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1848 running the school in question in the leased premises of I.S.M., Dhanbad since 1987. Surprisingly, instead of laying an independent challenge to the orders, if aggrieved, the review petitioner had sought to be impleaded in the writ petition preferred by the Society, which was being withdrawn in view of certain developments brought on record through I.A. No. 4296 of 2016 filed therein. The writ petitioner had stated that it is shifting to a new campus in compliance of the orders passed in eviction proceedings and also made a representation pursuant thereto dated 23.6.2016 bearing reference no. AQ/11/16-17 to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. The respondent-I.S.M., Dhanbad in their counter affidavit filed in the said writ petition had brought on record the undertaking on behalf of the Secretary of the writ petitioner Society before the Director, I.S.M., Dhanbad dated 1.8.2015 (Annexure-A) to vacate the premises in question by 31.3.2016 duly supported with affidavit also enclosed thereto. It had referred to the 1400 students enrolled therein with 100 students of the employees of the I.S.M., Dhanbad. This request was made in view of the Session 2015-16 having progressed for 4 months and fate of students being put to risk, if the shifting was undertaken in mid session. On that undertaking the petitioner Society was permitted to occupy the premises in question till 31.3.2016 as per the sand of the respondent-I.S.M., Dhanbad, brought on record in the said counter affidavit. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the I.S.M., Dhanbad that Secretary of the Society had in its affidavit stated that it shall not take any admission of the students any further in the above said school. On these grounds obviously the writ petitioner chose to withdraw the writ petition and was permitted to do so as it sought to honour its undertaking by shifting to the new premises.

5. As have been observed herein above, the order passed in Eviction Case No. 1 of 2013 dated 14.8.2014 and Misc. Appeal No. 24 of 2015 dated 27.7.2015 have not been challenged on independent grounds, if any by the review petitioner for the reason best known to him, till date.

6. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has sought to convey that writ petitioner Society represented by the Secretary did not further the case of the review