JUDGMENT 1. :- Since these two matters are inter-connected, they have been heard together and are being decided together. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99 was filed on 3.12.99. It was admitted on 6.12.99 on which date, it was ordered that notices of the stay petition be also issued. On 22.12.99, the Court, after finding that the notices have been served, directed the case to be put up after winter vacation. The case was listed on 24.3.2000 accordingly and was directed to be listed for final disposal in the week commencing 17th April, 2000. On 17.4.2000, the case was fixed but did not reach and was directed to be listed in the week commencing from 1st May, 2000. On 1.5.2000 also, it was listed but did not reach hearing stage. The case thereafter, was directed by the Registry to be listed on 4.7.2000 and on 4.7.2000 again the Registry directed the case to be listed for final disposal on 7.8.2000. 2. Meanwhile, on 31.7.2000, a learned Single Judge allowed some writ petitions involving similar points. These were S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2965/2000 Nathu Lal Jangid V. State of Rajasthan , S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4631/98 Vimal Chand Patni v. State of Rajasthan and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2348/2000 Pradeep Choudhary V. State of Rajasthan . It appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner, tempted by the favourable decision of the aforesaid cases by the learned Single Judge, filed on 4.8.2000 a writ petition before the Single Bench on the same cause of action on which D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99 was based. The case was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3585/2000. In the fresh writ petition, in Ground (G), a mention of the D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99 was made in the following words: "That the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 6364/99 challenging the order dated 29.10.99 however on application for withdrawal with liberty to file has filed before Hon'ble Court as this writ petition the petitioner could not file the charge sheet and copy of the reply submitted before the enquiry officer." (sic) 3. In the Foot Note No.1 to the above writ petition, earlier it was typed "No such D.B. Civil Writ petition has been filed before this Court previously". However, it was amended in hand to show that S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99 was filed. In the Foot Note No.1 to the above writ petition, earlier it was typed "No such D.B. Civil Writ petition has been filed before this Court previously". However, it was amended in hand to show that S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99 was filed. It is to be noted that neither in Ground (G) nor in the Foot Note No.1 it has been stated that D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99 was pending before the Division Bench. On the contrary, in the Foot Note to the writ petition instead of "D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99" "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99" is mentioned. 4. From the record, of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3585/2000, it is clear that the learned counsel for the petitioner obtained a slip from the Court Master attached to the court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.R. Yadav, on 4.8.2000 itself i.e. the date on which the writ petition was filed, for getting the case fixed before the Court on 7.8.2000. The case was accordingly listed on 7.8.2000 before Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.R. Yadav who had allowed on 31.7.2000, earlier mentioned similar petitions of Nathulal Jangid, Vimal Chand Patni and Pradeep Choudhary. The case was accordingly fixed before the court for the first time, on 7.8.2000. No notice was directed to be issued by the court but Miss Sumitra Goya], Dy. Government Advocate appeared in the case and Smt. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner, appeared for the petitioner. Both the counsel were heard by the learned Single Judge and following the decision in Nathu Lal Jangid's case (supra), the writ petition was disposed of quashing the impugned order dated 29.10.99 by which the petitioner was ousted from the post of Chairman and from membership of Deoli Municipality and certain other directions were given. From the proceedings, it is clear that none of the parties brought to the notice of the Court the fact of pendency of the earlier writ petition i.e. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99. 5. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99 on 1.8.2000. Smt. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner, moved an application for early listing of the case and on her request, the Court slip was issued on 1.8.2000 directing the listing of the case on 4.8.2000. 5. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99 on 1.8.2000. Smt. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner, moved an application for early listing of the case and on her request, the Court slip was issued on 1.8.2000 directing the listing of the case on 4.8.2000. A seal to that effect has also been affixed by the office on 2.8.2000 directing fixing of the case before the court on 4.8.2000. It was not clear from the record whether the case was actually listed on 4.8.2000. The cause list of 4.8.2000 was, therefore, called and perused. It shows that the case was listed before the Bench of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Madan at Sl.No. 24. There was, therefore, an opportunity for the learned counsel for the petitioner to mention the case for withdrawal if she had already made up her mind to withdraw the case and had applied for withdrawal in writing and to file the fresh writ petition before the Single Bench on the same day. This opportunity to get the case dismissed as withdrawan with liberty to file fresh petition was not availed of. 6. The next proceedings are of 8.8.2000 when the case was listed before the Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Madan. Mrs. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared before the Division Bench along with Shri M. Rafiq, Additional Advocate General for the respondent and the case was ordered to be put up on 10.8.2000 as requested. Even on 8.8.2000, Mrs. Naina Saraf learned counsel for the petitioner did not invite the attention of the court to the order dated 7.8.2000 already passed in her favour and did not mention that she had applied for withdrawal of the case, even though in Writ Petition No. 3585/2000 it was stated in Ground (G) on 4.8.2000 that application for withdrawal of Writ Petition No. 6364/99 with liberty to file fresh petition has been filed. 7. On 9.8.2000, the learned Single Judge recalled the order passed by him on 7.8.2000 on the ground of concealment of the fact of pendency of the earlier petition No. 6364/1999. In his detailed order dated 9.8.2000, the learned Single Judge described the sequence of events which led to recalling of the order dated 7.8.2000. The order was passed in the presence of Mrs. In his detailed order dated 9.8.2000, the learned Single Judge described the sequence of events which led to recalling of the order dated 7.8.2000. The order was passed in the presence of Mrs. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner who was the counsel for the petitioner in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99 also. It is categorically recorded that she was heard along with Mr. M. Rafiq, Additional Advocate General as also Miss Sumitra Goyal, Dy. Govt. Advocate. It has been categorically stated in the order that on 7.8.2000, Mrs. Naina Saraf did not disclose orally to the Court that a petition was pending before the Division Bench and an application was made for its withdrawal. Learned Single Judge was only persuaded to grant the same relief in the case which had been granted in similar petitions. The court observed that on 8.8.2000, the learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Mohd. Rafiq brought to his notice that a Division Bench writ petition was pending. Obviously, Mr. M. Rafiq, Additional Advocate General had come to know of the pendency of the DB Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99 as he had appeared in that case before the Division Bench in Hon'ble Chief Justice's Court on 8.8.2000. On receiving this information, the learned Single Judge thought it fit to recall his order dated 7.8.2000 and directed that the case be listed before him on 9.8.2000 and he recalled the order dated 7.8.2000, on 9.8.2000. Not only this, the learned Single Judge in his order dated 9.8.2000 recalling the order dated 7.8.2000 has categorically stated that Mrs. Naina Saraf had tendered unconditional apology for filing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3585/2000 during the pendency of DB Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99. He also recorded that Mrs. Naina Saraf regretted her conduct in not drawing the attention of the court to the pendency of the writ petition, at the time of passing of the order dated 7.8.2000. The Court also stated that if she had brought the fact to the notice of the Court, the order dated 7.8.2000 would not have been passed. The Court has recorded that Mrs. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner, seriously repented for her mistake and had tendered unconditional apology on which the Court took a lenient view and accepted the apology with an advice not to repeat such mistake in future. The Court has recorded that Mrs. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner, seriously repented for her mistake and had tendered unconditional apology on which the Court took a lenient view and accepted the apology with an advice not to repeat such mistake in future. Ultimately, the court recalled the order dated 7.8.2000 and dismissed the writ petition for concealment of material fact of pendency of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99 on the same subject, with Rs. 5,000/- as special costs. Against this order, Special Appeal (Writ) No. 864/2000 has been filed. 8. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 864/2000 is taken up for consideration first. The grievance of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge had lost sight of the fact that in Ground (G) of the writ petition it was categorically stated that a petition No. 6364/99 was pending and therefore, the petitioner or his counsel cannot be charged with concealment of material fact as to the pendency of the earlier writ petition. This would be a hyper-technical and too legalistic view of the situation. The duty of the counsel for the petitioner does not come to an end only by mentioning the fact of pendency of the writ petition in some nook or corner of the petition. The counsel is duty bound to invite the attention of the Court to such a statement in the petition and should orally bring it to the notice of the court at the time of hearing that a parallel proceeding is pending. The court is not expected to read every word written in every petition on its own. The counsel cannot be allowed to take the Court for a ride by making oral submissions concealing material facts which may be cursorily stated at some inconspicuous place in the petition and thus misleading the Court into believing that all the material facts are being stated orally before the Court. The counsel cannot be permitted to play hide and seek with the Court and to conceal facts with impunity in oral submissions leaving it for the Court to find out from the petition whether a parallel proceeding is pending or not. 9. It is noteworthy that the previous petition had not been disposed of. The counsel cannot be permitted to play hide and seek with the Court and to conceal facts with impunity in oral submissions leaving it for the Court to find out from the petition whether a parallel proceeding is pending or not. 9. It is noteworthy that the previous petition had not been disposed of. No counsel can claim his conduct to be clean when he files a fresh petition even without withdrawing the first petition and without waiting for orders on the application for withdrawal, if any, filed by him in the earlier case. It is too much for a counsel to presume that in the earlier petition, he would be allowed to withdraw the petition and that too with liberty to file a fresh petition. The conduct of the learned counsel in filing the petition even before the earlier petition was allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of, is reprehensible and not clean. It shows the clear intention of keeping the earlier petition pending and of taking advantage, at the same time of an order of final disposal passed in other similar case by the learned Single Judge. The mala fides of the learned counsel are dear from the fact that no regular application for withdrawal was even made in D.B. Civil Writ petition No. 6364/99 and when that case was fixed before the Court on 4.8.2000, she did not take the opportunity to withdraw the case orally or by inviting attention of the Court to the so called application for withdrawal made by her. She also did not inform the Court on that day that she had already filed a fresh petition. Even on 8.8.2000 also, she did not inform the Court that she had moved an application for withdrawal of the petition or that she had already obtained the relief from the learned Single Judge in another petition. Not only this, she did not even mention in Ground (G) of writ Petition No. 3585/2000 whether the petition was pending before the Division Bench or the Single Bench. She mentioned the number of the pending petition in the foot note of Writ Petition No. 3585/2000 to be S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99 and not the correct description of the petition as D.B. Civil Writ Petition. 10. The so-called application for withdrawal of the writ petition made on 4.8.2000 was also very unusual. She mentioned the number of the pending petition in the foot note of Writ Petition No. 3585/2000 to be S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99 and not the correct description of the petition as D.B. Civil Writ Petition. 10. The so-called application for withdrawal of the writ petition made on 4.8.2000 was also very unusual. It is in the shape of a letter addressed to the Dy. Registrar of High Court, Jaipur. It reads as under: "To The Deputy Registrar, High Court, Jaipur. Sub : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99 Babu Lal Deepak v. State of Rajasthan Sir, That the petitioner has filed the above mention writ petition challenging the order of removal from the chairmanship, Municipal Board and also order by which he has been debarred for contesting the election for five years from the date of order. Petitioner wants to file certain documents in this matter. Therefore, it is, prayed that petitioner may be allowed to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition. Since the next election are scheduled for 20.8.2000 and last date for submission form is 8.8.2000. Therefore, petitioner prays for listing this writ petition at earliest. dated 4.8.2000 (Sd. Naina Saraf Advocate.") 11. It cannot be believed that Mrs. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner, did not know the procedure for making an application for withdrawal of the petition before the Court. It cannot be believed that the counsel could think of withdrawing a petition by writing a letter to the Deputy Registrar of this Court and praying that the petitioner may be allowed to withdraw the petition with liberty to file fresh petition. However, the motive for getting the relief by hook or crook is disclosed by this letter. It has been stated in the letter that the next elections are scheduled on 20.8.2000 and the last date of submission of form is 8.8.2000. It appears that the petitioner wanted to fill in the form as a candidate in the election before 8.8.2000 and for that purpose, was in great hurry to get a favourable order before that date. It appears that this motivated the petitioner and/or the learned counsel for the petitioner to act in the indecent manner in which she acted. It appears that the petitioner wanted to fill in the form as a candidate in the election before 8.8.2000 and for that purpose, was in great hurry to get a favourable order before that date. It appears that this motivated the petitioner and/or the learned counsel for the petitioner to act in the indecent manner in which she acted. It is noteworthy that this letter does not bear any inward number and therefore, it cannot be authentically said that it was presented to the Registry by the learned counsel for the petitioner on 4.8.2000 especially when the petitioner and his counsel had opportunity of withdrawing the petition on oral or written request before the court on 4.8.2000 itself when the case was listed in the cause list. In the dubious circumstances of the case, the possibility that the letter was submitted after filing of the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3585/2000 cannot be ruled out as this letter is said to be addressed to the Deputy Registrar on 4.8.2000 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3885/2000 was also filed on 4.8.2000 when the case was also listed before the Court. The fact remains that there was no regular application filed for withdrawal of the D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99 and a statement was made in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3585/2000 that such an application was pending before the Court. 12. It is also noteworthy that in the aforesaid letter to the Dy. Registrar, the reason for withdrawal of the petition is given as the desire to "file certain documents" and not filing of a fresh petition before a Single Bench because of a favourable decision by the Single Bench. The impression one gets from the letter is that a fresh petition would be filed before a Division Bench as the earlier petition was before the Division Bench. This again is an attempt to mislead the Court in to believing that the prayer was innocuous. 13. In the memo of appeal of D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 864/2000, the appellant has stated that during the course of arguments on 7.8.2000 before the learned Single Judge, Miss Sumitra Goyal, appearing on behalf of the State Government took an objection and submitted before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner had already filed DB Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99. It is also alleged that Miss Sumitra Goyal had also stated before the learned Single Judge that she had invited attention of the Court to the pendency of the other petition on 7.8.2000 also. The averment is not borne out by the facts recorded by the court in its order 7.8.2000 or 9.8.2000. Anything which is not borne out from the record cannot be believed by the Court to be true and in this case, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Naina Saraf did not even consider it necessary to file her affidavit when she was contradicting the proceedings of the court and was bent upon proving the Court wrong. If the counsel had any grievance about incorrect recording of the proceedings by the Court, she should have filed a review application before the learned Single Judge who would have been the best person to decide the issue. Instead, she had prostrated before the learned Single Judge and had feigned repentance for her misconduct and tendered an unconditional apology. She cannot, therefore, be heard to say that proceedings recorded by the learned Single Judge were incorrect. 14. The next ground urged in the memo of appeal is that the petitioner or his counsel had no notice of the case being listed on 9.8.2000. The question of notice pales into insignificance as Mrs. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner had herself appeared before the learned Single Judge and the order was passed after hearing her. In fact, the Court took a lenient view and imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- only as she was able to persuade the learned Single Judge to believe that she was seriously repenting for whatever she had done and she had tendered an unconditional apology for her misconduct. The plea, therefore, that proper and adequate opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner is not tenable. The court had recalled the order dated 7.8.2000 only because of the concealment of the fact of pendency of an earlier petition before the Division Bench on the same subject matter and on the same cause of action. The Court was, therefore, not concerned with the merits of the case. The court had recalled the order dated 7.8.2000 only because of the concealment of the fact of pendency of an earlier petition before the Division Bench on the same subject matter and on the same cause of action. The Court was, therefore, not concerned with the merits of the case. The only point on which the hearing was to be afforded was as to whether the earlier petition was pending or not and whether this fact was concealed from the Court while obtaining the favourable order by the petitioner. Both these facts are clearly established before this Court. It cannot also be denied that the earlier writ petition was pending and is still pending. As already discussed the fact of pendency of the earlier case was clearly held back from the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the petition on 7.8.2000. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find no force in this appeal. Actually, it is extremely audacious on the part of Mrs. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the appellant, to have filed this appeal before us after having repented for her conduct before the learned Single Judge and after having tendered unconditional apology for concealing the fact of pendency of the earlier writ petition No. 6364/99 from the learned Single Judge. After having conceded that she had concealed the fact of pendency of the other petition and having repented for that, no appeal could be filed against an order dismissing the writ petition on the ground of concealment. The appeal is therefore dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we impose a cost of Rupees Ten thousand (Rs. 10000/-) to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Committee constituted under the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1999. 16. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99, till date, no formal application for withdrawal has been presented at any time so far. As already discussed, the letter written to the Dy. Registrar of the Court cannot be treated as an application for withdrawal. The case was, therefore, heard. Without going into the merits of the case, we are of the opinion that this case also should be dismissed for concealment of facts and for the unclean conduct of the petitioner and his counsel. On 1.8.2000, an application for early listing of the case was made by Mrs. The case was, therefore, heard. Without going into the merits of the case, we are of the opinion that this case also should be dismissed for concealment of facts and for the unclean conduct of the petitioner and his counsel. On 1.8.2000, an application for early listing of the case was made by Mrs. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner, praying for listing of the case on the same day on the ground that the last date for submission of nomination forms for election was 4.8.2000. The court permitted the case to be fixed on 4.8.2000 instead of the same day as was prayed for in the application. It is noteworthy that in the letter written to the Deputy Registrar on 4.8.2000, the last date for submission of the nomination form was stated to be 8.8.2000 whereas it was stated to be 4.8.2000 in the application for early listing of the case moved on 1.8.2000. It is clear that when the Court did not accede to the listing of case on 1.8.2000 itself, learned counsel decided, to file the Single Bench petition taking advantage of a favourable order passed in similar case by the learned Single Judge. She did not avail of the opportunity to withdraw the case on oral or written prayer on 4.8.2000 when the case was fixed before the Court. Even on 8.8.2000, the learned counsel did not inform the Court that she had already obtained a favourable order from the Single Bench on 7.8.2000 and the matter should be disposed of as having become infructuous or should be allowed to be withdrawn. This is a clear concealment of fact from the court. It is obvious that for the fear of Court, questioning her going to the Single Bench during the pendency of the case and obtaining the relief, the learned counsel did not disclose the fact and chose to make a request for postponement of the hearing of the case. The entire conduct of the petitioner and his counsel is deceitful not clean and we are therefore not inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of such a petitioner. This writ petition also has to be dismissed for the deceitful and unclean conduct of the petitioner and his counsel. The writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. The entire conduct of the petitioner and his counsel is deceitful not clean and we are therefore not inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of such a petitioner. This writ petition also has to be dismissed for the deceitful and unclean conduct of the petitioner and his counsel. The writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10000/- (Rupees ten thousand) to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Committee constituted under the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1999.The result is that D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 864/2000 is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Committee constituted under the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1999 and DB Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/99 is also dismissed with separate cost of Rs. 10000/- (Rs. ten thousand) to be paid by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Committee constituted under the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1999.Petition Dismissed. *******