Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 968 (PAT)

Binod Kumar v. Union of India

2000-08-08

S.K.KATRIAR

body2000
ORDER I.A. no. 3198 of 2000 This interlocutory application has been filed by respondent no. 2 (Delear Selection Board) for recall of the order dated 12.5.2000, whereby respondent no. 2, as well as respondent no. 4 (Rajiv Kumar), were directed to pay costs quantified at Rs.10000/- each to the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Rs.10000/- each to be deposited with the Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority. Respondent no. 4 complied with the order and paid the costs. Respondent no. 2 has chosen to file this interlocutory application for recall of the order dated 12.5.2000. 2. On 12.5.2000, this writ application was taken up for final disposal. Learned counsel for the petitioner had advanced arguments at length where after learned counsel for respondent no. 2 was called upon to make submissions in support of the impugned order. He wanted to rely on a document which was not on record. It was not possible to allow the respondents to rely on the aforesaid document, because the same was not on record and the petitioner had no occasion to meet the same. However, on the submission of learned counsel for respondent no. 2, and the willingness to pay costs for the adjournment, the case was adjourned to enable respondent no. 2 as well as respondent no. 4 to bring on record the document by means of supplementary affidavit so that the petitioner has also the opportunity to meet the same. Thereafter respondent no. 2 filed the present interlocutory application for recall of the order dated 12.5.2000, inter alia, on the ground that the document was really in the interest of respondent no. 4 and it was really for respondent no. 4, and respondent no. 5 (Director General of Resettlement), to justify the impugned orders. In other words, it was really respondent nos. 4 and 5 who needed the documents in support of their case. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 at length on this application who has invited my attention to the averments made in this application which, as stated above, is to the effect that it is really respondent nos. 4 and 5 who require the document in support of their cases and, therefore, respondent no. 2 should not have been saddled with costs. I am unable to acced to this contention for the reason that it was at the behest of respondent no. 4 and 5 who require the document in support of their cases and, therefore, respondent no. 2 should not have been saddled with costs. I am unable to acced to this contention for the reason that it was at the behest of respondent no. 2 that the adjournment was granted on 12.5.2000, to enable respondent no. 2 as well as respondent no.4 to bring the document on record. It was open to the Court to decline adjournment, because arguments on behalf of the petitioner had been advanced at length, a lot of time was consumed in that, and the matter would have been finally disposed of on that date but for the' adjournment to file the document. After having taken the benefit of adjournment, it is no longer open to the respondents, much less respondent no. 2 in particular, to turn round and challenge the order and/or pray for recall of the same. It is indeed a very dishonest act on the part of respondent no. 2, and this court fails in its words to adequately deprecate this attitude. This case would have been finally disposed of on that date, but has not been disposed of on till date on account of the dishonest and now recalcitrant approach on the part of respondent no. 2. I am unable to allow this application also on the grounds stated in my order dated 17.5.2000, passed on a similar application in C.W.J.C. no. 2880 of 1998 (All India Kerosene Dealers Federation Vs. The Union of India and others), which is set out herein below for the facility of quick reference: "This interlocutory application has been filed for recall of the order dated 28.4.2000, whereby costs quantified at Rs.5000/- was inflicted on respondent no. 3 (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation) for the reason that counsel for respondent no. 3 had prayed for adjournment after the case was taken up for hearing, to enable him to file counter affidavit. This Court showed extraordinary indulgence to respondent no. 3 and agreed to adjourn the matter at that stage on payment of costs. Instead of gracefully acknowledging the indulgence shown to respondent no. 3, I say extra ordinary indulgence, respondent no. 3 has filed this interlocutory application for recall of the order. This Court showed extraordinary indulgence to respondent no. 3 and agreed to adjourn the matter at that stage on payment of costs. Instead of gracefully acknowledging the indulgence shown to respondent no. 3, I say extra ordinary indulgence, respondent no. 3 has filed this interlocutory application for recall of the order. Trying to explain as to under what circumstances the delay took place in filing the counter affidavit, learned counsel has argued in a manner as if it were an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. This Court records its displeasure against the conduct of respondent no. 3 for having filed this interlocutory application for recall of the order inflicting costs It completely overlooks the hoary practice that the incidence of costs is never objected, nor the quantification, at the time the order to that effect is passed, let alone at a later stage as in the present case. Respondent no. 3 has woefully failed to realise that it was open to the Court to proceed with the hearing of the case on the basis of the pleadings on record. but agreed to adjourn the matter condoning the grave dereliction on the part of respondent no. 3 in filing the counter affidavit on payment of a nominal cost Rs.5000/- The Court's time as well as the efforts of the other side, on both the days have gone in vain. The order dated 28.4.2000 has no reflection on the merits of the case. I fail in my words to record my condemnation adequately for such a mindless act. 2. In the circumstances stated above this interlocutory application is hereby rejected, and respondent no. 3 is hereby directed to pay further costs quantified at Rs.10.000/- payable to the learned counsel for the petitioner within the period granted by this Court earlier by order dated 28.4.2000 for having engaged this Court in such a frivolous application." 4. In fact, the case of respondent no. 2 in the present case is far worse than that of the respondent who filed a similar interlocutory application in the said C.W.J.C. No. 2880 of 1998, namely, that case was adjourned soon after the case was called out at the stage of final hearing and no time of the court was wasted. In fact, the case of respondent no. 2 in the present case is far worse than that of the respondent who filed a similar interlocutory application in the said C.W.J.C. No. 2880 of 1998, namely, that case was adjourned soon after the case was called out at the stage of final hearing and no time of the court was wasted. On the other hand, in the present case as stated herein above, the arguments on behalf of the petitioner had been advanced at length and the entire time and effort of the Court has gone waste because of the adjournment granted on that date, otherwise the writ petition would have been disposed of on that date. The present application is a gross abuse of the process of the Court. 5. In that view of the matter this interlocutory application is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.15000/- to be deposited with the Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, on or before 18.8.2000. Respondent no. 2 shall comply with the direction made on 12.5.2000 within the same time. I leave this matter with a heavy heart and fond desire that such unwanted, dishonest, and mindless applications should not be brought before this Court which is one of the important reasons for the piling arrears in the Court. 6. The subject matter is no longer with me. Let this case go out of my list. Put up for admission before an appropriate Bench.