MCC for restoration rejected where allegation of backdating revenue orders lacks evidentiary support beyond e-portal discrepancies.

The petitioners filed a Miscellaneous Civil Case (MCC) seeking the restoration of a previously disposed writ petition (WPC No. 6719/2025).

The original writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioners on 01.04.2026 after the State filed a reply claiming that their grievances had been addressed via an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) (Revenue), Champa, on 21.01.2026.

The petitioners subsequently alleged that this SDO order was backdated, citing E-Court Revenue System data showing the case was registered and disposed of on the same day (02.03.2026).

The State countered that the order was physically passed on 21.01.2026 but only uploaded to the digital system on 02.03.2026, leading to the discrepancy in registration dates.

1. Whether the writ petition (WPC No. 6719/2025) should be restored on the grounds that it was withdrawn based on false or backdated information provided by the State respondents.

The court applied the principle of judicial review concerning the restoration of proceedings under the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction.

The core legal rule dictates that for a disposed or withdrawn matter to be restored on the grounds of misrepresentation, the applicant must provide Cogent evidence (such as order sheets) to disprove the official record of the subordinate authority.

Administrative grievances regarding the conduct of revenue officers (such as backdating documents) fall under the supervisory jurisdiction of the District Collector rather than being grounds for restoration of a writ without prima facie proof.

The Court examined the material placed on record, specifically Annexure-C/4 (the SDO order), and noted that the document itself explicitly recorded the date of the order as 21.01.2026.

The Court observed that the petitioners relied solely on automated metadata from the E-filing system to allege backdating.

Critically, the Court found that the petitioners failed to produce physical order sheets or concurrent evidence to contradict the date mentioned on the face of the SDO's order.

Conversely, the Court noted that the order sheets actually supported the State’s contention that the decision was rendered on 21.01.2026.

It held that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the SDO order was backdated.

The Court granted the petitioners liberty to submit a formal complaint before the concerned Collector if they wished to pursue the grievance regarding the alleged backdating of the revenue order.