HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11714 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rahul Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State, Shri Lalit Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for All India Council of Technical Education and Shri Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam Technical University. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the recommendation made by the Affiliation Committee of Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam Technical University on 28.10.2025 in view of the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, the affiliation granted to the petitioner-institute i.e. Azad Institute Of Engineering And Technology (053) be canceled and students of the said institute be adjusted in other institute. 3. The order dated 03.09.2025 referred to in the impugned resolution has been passed in Review Petition No.3935 of 2025 filed by State of UP for review of the judgment and order dated 28.07.2025 passed in Revision No.2267 of 2024. The aforesaid revision was filed by the Azad Educational Society which runs the petitioner-institute. The revision was allowed by means of an judgment and order dated 28.07.2025 cancelling the order dated 14.08.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner whereby, the land bearing Gata No.608 measuring 34-14-10, which was recorded in the name of eight tenure holders, was ordered to be restored as Meadow land. It is recorded in the order that the petitioner has purchased the land from the tenure holders whose names were recorded in the revenue record. By means of the revisional order dated 28.07.2025, the Board of Revenue has set aside the order dated 14.08.2023 passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner. Resultantly, the doubt created on the petitioner's title in respect of the land in question has been cleared in favour of the petitioner. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Atul Kumar Dwivedi, Lalit Shukla Azad Institute Of Engineering And Technology Thru.Authorized Signatory,Shekh Murad .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Prin. Secy. Deptt. Technical Edu. Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. In the order dated 03.09.2025, passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No.3935 of 2025 filed by the State of UP, the it has recorded that prima facie, the order dated 28.07.2025 does not appear to be suffering from any error. Yet, the Board of Revenue has stayed the operation of order dated 28.7.2025 till hearing of the review petition. The order specifically directs the Standing Counsel of the State of UP to advance submissions on admission of the review petition on the next date which was fixed as 07.10.2025. It appears that no hearing could take place on 07.10.2025 and the review petition is still pending. 5. An error apparent on the face of the record is a per-requisite for entertaining an application for review and when the Board of Revenue has made a specific observation that prima facie, there appears to be no error in the order dated 28.07.2025, passing of an interim order staying the operation of the order dated 28.07.2025 and directing the parties to maintain status quo and that too while merely a date has been fixed for hearing on admission of the review petition which has not yet been admitted, appears to be a strange course adopted by the Board of Revenue. Be that as it may, the stay order dated 03.09.2025 does not wash away the effect of the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No.2267 of 2024. 6. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras reported in (1992) 3 SCC 1 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, "while considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay of operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence." 7. As this Court does not propose to go into the correctness of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, no counter affidavit is required at this stage and the Court proceeds to decide the petition finally, after hearing submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed in part. 9. It is provided that no final decision regarding the cancellation of affiliation granted to the petitioner will be taken till a final decision is taken by the Board of Revenue in Review Petition No.3935 of 2025. The petitioner shall be permitted to continue to run the institution and conduct educational activities therein. WRIC No. 11714 of 2025 2 10. It is made clear that this Court has not examined merits of the allegations against the petitioner and the merits of the review petition which will be decided by the Board of Revenue without being affected by any observation made in this order. December 10, 2025 V. Sinha WRIC No. 11714 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench