The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdictional aspect of the court's power to review and the maintainability of intra-court appeals under specific provisions of the law.

SANJAY YADAV, J.

This order shall dispose of bunch of review petitions bearing Review Petition Nos. 413/2017, 414/2017, 415/2017, 416/2017, 417/2017, 418/2017, 419/2017, 420/2017, 421/2017, 422/2017, 423/2017, 424/2017, 425/2017, 426/2017, 427/2017, 428/2017, 429/2017, 430/2017, 431/2017, 432/2017, 433/2017, 434/2017, 435/2017, 436/2017, 437/2017, 438/2017, 439/2017, 440/2017, 441/2017, 442/2017, 443/2017, 444/2017, 445/2017, 446/2017, 447/2017, 448/2017, 449/2017, 450/2017, 451/2017 and 452/2017 arising out of common order passed on 29-6-2017 whereby the writ appeals were allowed. The question of fact and law is common in all these review petitions.

2. The writ appeals were directed against the order passed in respective writ petitions whereby the learned Single Judge finding fault with power exercised by the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) under the Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 (For short, ‘the Rules of 1996’) had set aside the same on the finding that on the date of the order, it was not within the powers of the Deputy Commissioner to have imposed three times penalty under sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1996 which underwent amendment with effect from 29-3-2011 vide Notification No. F-B-1-49-2011-2V (07) dated 29-3-2011 published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 29-3-2011 at page 258.

3. The appeal was at the instance of the State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries on the ground that the notification, on the basis whereof, the exercise of power by the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) has been found fault with was made effective from a prospective date, whereas, the cause of action which was subject-matter of the writ petition had arisen in the year 2009 i.e., before coming into force of the notification dated 29-3-2011.

4. On 29-6-2017 when W.A. No. 425/2016 and the connected writ appeals were posted for hearing, the Bar Association, Gwalior vide resolution dated 28-6-2017 gave a call to abstain from the Court. The appellant was present. However, respondent remained absent, though there was no bar for the parties to appear and argue. The appellant was heard. As sufficient explanation was tendered for delay in filing the appeal(s), interlocutory application for condonation was allowed. After hearing, the order was dictated in open Court.

5. Present petition(s) are filed seeking review of the order on the ground that preliminary objection as to maintainability was raised as the order under challenge was passed by the writ Court exceeding the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. That, contentions are also made in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Review Petition that in absence of the counsel, the parties should not be made to suffer. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Rafiq v. Munshilal, (1981) 2 SCC 788 and Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh v. Raghu Raj, (2008) 13 SCC 395 to bolster the submissions. However, when learned counsel for the petitioner was apprised of the fact that it was not the casual absence of the counsel, but the counsel had abstained from appearing in Court supporting the call from the Bar Association to boycott the Court. When faced with said fact situation, learned counsel for the petitioner instantly withdrew the ground of counsel's absence and confined his submissions only to that, had the preliminary objection as to maintainability of the writ appeal was considered the same would have resulted in dismissal of appeals. Reliance is placed on the decision in Jaidev Siddha (Dr.) v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007 (3) M.P.L.J. 595, Manoj Kumar v. Board of Revenue, 2008 (1) M.P.L.J. 152, Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320 and Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 9 SCC 1.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

8. At the cost of repetition, we remind the petitioner that it was the self imposed condition by its counsel in not appearing in the Court, though he was not prevented by any prohib