Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Ramesh Kumar Agrawal for the petitioner, and Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal for the respondent Corporation and its functionaries. 2. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner had appeared in support of the writ petition on 3-12-99 and misled this Court into passing that order. It is obvious from the order that he had contended that the petitioner had submitted his tender in time, quoting the highest rates for purchase of all the rejected items of the Corporation. Mr. Agrawal had submitted before this Court that the petitioner had made the highest bid for all the items notwithstanding which the respondent Corporation and its functionaries for ulterior motives had accepted the bid of the petitioner for a few items only. On such statement of Mr. Agrawal, this Court had directed the Corporation and its functionaries to file counter-affidavit explaining the reasons for not giving the contract to the petitioner for all the items, and instead gave the contract for the remaining items to persons who had made bid at lower rates. In that view of the matter, learned cousel for the Corporation was directed to file a counter-affidavit which has since been filed. The said order dated 3-12-99 of this Court is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference : " 3-12-1999 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had submitted his tender in time quoting the highest rates for all the items sought to be disposed of by the respondent Corporation, notwithstanding which he was not awarded the contract for all the items for malafide reasons entirely attributable to the officials of the respondent Corporation.Mr. P. Tekriwal, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, is accordingly directed to file an exhaustive counter affidavit with all the details, facts and figures alsong with the supporting documents, within a period of two weeks, explaining the reason(s) as to why the contract for each item was not given to the highest tenderer. He is directed to keep all the original documents in his possession for persual of the Court.Let it be clearly recorded that the tender in question did not relate to purchase of goods where the question of quality control could have been in question. He is directed to keep all the original documents in his possession for persual of the Court.Let it be clearly recorded that the tender in question did not relate to purchase of goods where the question of quality control could have been in question. It is a case of disposal of rejected items where the question of quality control does not arise.Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Union of India as well as the Comptroller and Auditor General, Govt. of India as party respondents. let the counsel for the petitioner serve four sets of the brief on newly added respondents through Mr. J. P. Karn, Sr. SCCG, within one week failing which the application shall stand dismissed as against the newly-added respondents without further reference to Bench. Let copy of this order be served on Mr. J. P. Karn, Sr. SCCG.Put up after three weeks." 3. It is manifest 3 from a persual of the counter affidavit as well as the submissions of Mr. Tekriwal, learned counsel for the Corporation, that the petitioner had not made the highest bid for all the times. His tender was accepted for the items for which his bid was the highest, and the contract for the remaining items were given to those of the tenderers who had made the highest offers. Mr. Tekriwal very fairly shows from the chart that there was a minor typegraphical error with regard to one item which had resulted in a loss of an inconsequential sum of Rs. 20.00 to the Corporation. Mr. Tekriwal further informs the Court that the petitioner did not lift the materials for which he had been given the contract by the respondent Corporation which has resulted in a loss of Rs. 1,85,789.00 to the Corporation, because it had to readvertise those items and had to be sold for a lesser amount resulting in the said loss. Mr. Tekriwal further informs the Court that they are now left with the earnest money of Rs. 25,000.00 only deposited by the petitioner. 4. The position, therefore, which clearly emerges is that Mr.Ramesh kumar Agrawal Adovcate, appearing ofr the petitioner, was personally responsible for misleading this court resulting in the erronesous order dated 3-12-99 by this court. Mr. Tekriwal further informs the Court that they are now left with the earnest money of Rs. 25,000.00 only deposited by the petitioner. 4. The position, therefore, which clearly emerges is that Mr.Ramesh kumar Agrawal Adovcate, appearing ofr the petitioner, was personally responsible for misleading this court resulting in the erronesous order dated 3-12-99 by this court. This is ominous and if overlooked may result in gross miscarriage of justice, and there shall be no protection to the Court, for more often than not orders are passed ex-parte, or before the respondent file thir counter affidavit. Mr. Tekriwal, learned counsel for the Corporation, submits that action against Mr. Agrawal may be taken under Secs. 192, 196 and 209 IPC. He further swubmits that it may in addition be referred to the Bar Council for appreopriate action in accordance with law. He is at a loss to make any submission with respect to the loss incurred by the Corporation, and submits that it can validly withhold the sum of Rs. 25000.00 in deposit as earnest money. 5. I have heard Mr. R.K. Agrawal Advocsate, and Mr, Tekriwal, Advocate. Mr. Agrawal unequivocally admits his mistake, submits unconditional apology, and promises responsible behaviour in future, This court is in no doubt that Mr. R. K. Agrawal had purposely and with sinister motive misled this court resulting in the erroneous order dated 3-12-99. This Court treats it to be a case of gross misconduct on the part of Mr. Agrawal personally, condemns his conduct, and administers a severe warning on him with the hope that he shall hereinafter conduct himself with the dignity and the sense of responsibility expected of him as lawyer and officer of this Court. Taking into account the overall view of the situation and in view of the remorseful confession of Mr. Agrawal. I accept the unconditional apology of Mr. Agrawal and leave the matter at that. Therefore, there is no need to pursue the matter any further against him. 6. This writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000.00 (ten thousand). No urther action need be taken against Mr.Agarawal, but he is warned to be careful in future.Petition dismissed