Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1129 (PAT)

Dealer Selection Board v. Binod Kumar

2000-09-19

D.P.S.CHOUDHARY, NAGENDRA RAI

body2000
Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 8.8.2000 passed in CWJC No. 9951 of 1999 by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which he has rejected the review application filed by the appellant-Dealer Selection Board for recall of the order dated 12.5.2000 whereby the appellant as well as respondent No.4, who was also respondent No.4 in the writ application, were directed to pay quantified cost of Rs. 10,000/- each to the learned counsel for the writ pettioner-respondent No. 1 and they were also directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- each in the name of Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority and has further saddled the appellant with a cost of Rs. 15,000A to be deposited with the Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority. 2. This matter arises in the following circumstances. An advertisement was issued for allotment of LPG distributorship under the defence category. Respondent No.1 Binod Kumar and respondent No.4 Rajiv Kumar were the claimants and the distributorship was allotted to respondent No. 4 Rajiv Kumar which has been challenged by respondent No. 1 in the writ application. After the argument was advanced on behalf of respondent No. 1, the argument began on behalf of the appellant During course of argument, the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 handed over one circular to the learned counsel for the appellant who wanted to produce the said document before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge having noticed that this document was filed in the midst of the argument after the learned counsel for respondent No.1 had finished the argument, took a serious view of the matter and directed the appellant to deposit the quantified cost as stated above and further directed that unless the cost is paid, the document shall not be taken into consideration. Thereafter the appellant filed an application for modification of the order which has been rejected by the learned Single Judge with a further cost of Rs. 15,000/-. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mr. Thereafter the appellant filed an application for modification of the order which has been rejected by the learned Single Judge with a further cost of Rs. 15,000/-. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mr. K. D. Chatterjee who himself argued the matter before the learned Single Judge also, having standing at the bar almost 59 years and had the privilege of being Advocate General of this State submitted that the matter was being heard at the stage of admission and during course of the argument, the document was handed over to him by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 and even no time was prayed for to adjourn the case and in that situation, the learned Single Judge should not have accepted the document, but should not have awarded such a heavy cost to his client as well as respondent No.4. He also submitted that while disposing of the review application, the learned Judge has made certain remarks against the appellant imputing dishonesty on its part which in the facts of this case is not warranted. 4. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 admitted the fact that no time was sought for by Mr. K. D. Chatterjee for bringing the aforesaid document on record and only that document was referred to by him. 5. When the document was produced without bringing on the record in terms of the relevant rules, then the document has to be ignored speqially when no time was prayed for, but on that account awarding a heavy cost, in our view, was not just and proper. In the modification application, the appellant only brought these facts to the notice of the learned Judge. From a perusal of the order, it appears that the learned Single Judge has observed that filing of modification application is a dishonest act on the part of the appelant. We do not subscribe to such harsh finding against the appellant for filing a modification application bringing to the notice of the Court that award of heavy cost was not justified on the ground that a senior member of the Bar produced a document during course of hearing which was not brought through affidavit. 6. We do not subscribe to such harsh finding against the appellant for filing a modification application bringing to the notice of the Court that award of heavy cost was not justified on the ground that a senior member of the Bar produced a document during course of hearing which was not brought through affidavit. 6. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that this was not a case where a heavy cost should have been awarded against any of the parties, nor further cost should have been saddled only on the ground of filing a modification petition. Accordingly, we set-aside the orders by which cost has been awarded against the appellant as well as respondent No.4 who has filed the cross-appeal. 7. It appears that respondent No.4 has already deposited Rs. 10,000/- with the Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority and has also paid Rs. 10,000/- to the learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent No.1. Taking into consideration the fair stand taken by another Senior counsel, Mr. I. K. Sharan who is appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 that as he has already deposited the amount, only 50% amount paid to the counsel for respondent No.1 as well as to the Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority should be refunded to him and he will not claim for the remaining amount. Accordingly, we direct Mr. Bal Mukund Prasad Sinha to return Rs. 5,000/- within 10 days from today to respondent No.4 and the member, Secretary, State Legal Services Authority is also directed to refund Rs. 5,000/- out of 10,000/- deposited with it to respondent No.4, Rajiv Kumar. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not mentioned much less expressed any opinion with regard to merit of the claim which has still to be decided by the learned Single Judge. So far as whether the aforesaid document is to be taken into consideration or not, it is for the learned Single Judge. So far as whether the aforesaid document is to be taken into consideration or not, it is for the learned Single Judge to consider during course of hearing of the matter. 9. With the aforesaid directions/observation, the appeal stands disposed of.