Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 189 (JHR)

Hegal Hembram v. State Of Bihar

2005-03-02

M.Y.EQBAL

body2005
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application since a very serious question was raised by the petitioner that without issuing any notice the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, this Court, on 17.1.2005, passed the following order : "Heard in part. Put up this case on 24.1.2005. In the meantime, standing counsel No. 1 is directed to send FAX to the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division for production of record of Kolhan Title Appeal No. 89 of 1995 disposed of on 12.1.1998. SC.I. is also directed to inform the office of the Commissioner for production of the records. Let a copy of this order be handed over to SC.I for needful." 2. When the record was not produced, this court passed order on 23.2.2005 directing the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, to personally appear and file show cause why a contempt proceeding be not initiated against her. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division has appeared in person and filed a show cause stating, inter alia, that the record was sent by special messenger and the same was received by standing counsel No. 1 on 22.2.2005. 4. When this case was taken up on 23.2.2005, it was submitted on behalf of SC.I that in spite of giving intimation by FAX, the record has not been produced by the Commissioner. This prima facie appears to be a false submission made by the learned SC.I which resulted in unnecessarily calling of the Commissioner before this Court. This Court, therefore, expresses serious exception and anguish on the way the submission was made by SC.I on 23.2.2005. 5. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts the show cause filed by the Commissioner is accepted and her appearance in this case is dispensed with. 6. Heard the parties on the merits of the case. In the instant writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 12.1.1998 passed by respondent No. 2, Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur. Ranchi in Kolhan Title Appeal No. 89/95 whereby the appeal filed by the respondents was allowed and the suit was decreed, 7. It appears that a Kolhan Title Suit No. 15/84 was filed for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession in respect of the land in question. Ranchi in Kolhan Title Appeal No. 89/95 whereby the appeal filed by the respondents was allowed and the suit was decreed, 7. It appears that a Kolhan Title Suit No. 15/84 was filed for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession in respect of the land in question. The said suit was eventually dismissed and the matter ultimately went to the Commissioner at the instance of the respondents by filing appeal being Kolhan Appeal No. 89/95. The Commissioner, in terms of the order dated 12.1.1998 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and ultimately the suit was decreed. 8. When the matter was taken up on 17.11.2004, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently argued and submitted that the Commissioner, without issuing notice to the appellants-respondents, disposed of the appeal ex parte. This Court, therefore, by order dated 17.1.2005, directed the state counsel to produce the original record of Kolhan Title Appeal No. 89/95. 9. Today, learned Advocate General produced before this Court the original record of the aforesaid appeal and submitted that not only notices were served upon the petitioner but the petitioner appeared and filed vakalatnama and, thereafter, remained absent. The Commissioner, after giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to appear in the case, disposed of the appeal. 10. I have perused the original record of Kolhan Title Appeal No. 89/95 of the Court of Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi. The service report of notice shows that notice was issued on 13.6.1996 and it was served upon the petitioner- respondent on 16.6.1996. The petitioner-respondent, thereafter, appeared by filing vakalatnama on 15.7.1996. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, has stated in para 2 that notice was issued and was duly served. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner not only made false statement in the writ petition but the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also made incorrect submission that without issuing notice the Commissioner passed the impugned order. The instant writ petition is, therefore, bound to be dismissed not only on merits but also because of suppression of fact and misleading the Court. 11. In the background of the aforesaid circumstances I dismiss this writ petition by imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) which must be deposited by the petitioner within a period of four weeks. The instant writ petition is, therefore, bound to be dismissed not only on merits but also because of suppression of fact and misleading the Court. 11. In the background of the aforesaid circumstances I dismiss this writ petition by imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) which must be deposited by the petitioner within a period of four weeks. The cost amount shall be deposited in the account of Jharkhand High Court Legal Service Committee.