Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 187 (HP)

Sher Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2006-06-29

V.K.GUPTA

body2006
JUDGMENT V.K. Gupta, C.J. 1. In this Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner is not seeking to challenge any order passed by the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal but is seeking directions qua the early disposal of the Original Application filed by him which, owing to the utter neglect on the part of the respondent is not making any headway despite its pendency for over two years. The petitioner's dismay is that despite its pendency for over two years, in the said Original Application the respondent has not been filing the reply even though opportunities have been given to it by the learned Tribunal on several occasions since April, 2004. 2. A perusal of the present Miscellaneous Petition and the Annexures filed therewith shows that the first order was passed in this Original Application on 28th April, 2004 by the Division Bench of the learned Tribunal directing the respondent-State to file reply to the Original Application within six weeks. Thereafter various orders were passed by the Tribunal from time to time extending time for filing the reply by the respondent-State. On 3rd May, 2006, the Tribunal passed the following order: Despite last opportunity reply has not been filed. Learned Deputy Advocate General prays for and is granted one more opportunity to file reply within four weeks subject to cost of Rs. 200/ - which may be recovered from the erring officer/official. List thereafter. MA No. 2544/05. MA No. 827/05. List along with the main matter. 3. The tone and tenor of the aforesaid, order clearly suggests that "last opportunity" had been granted by the Tribunal to the respondent to file the reply before 3rd May, 2006 but even despite the grant of the last opportunity the reply had not been filed. Four weeks' time was granted on 3rd May, 2006 to file the reply subject to payment of Rs. 200/- as costs. Four weeks' time granted vide this order was to expire on 31st May, 2006. Reply had still not been filed. 4. In the aforesaid background the petitioner was constrained to file this petition in this Court on 20th June, 2006. Admittedly until then the reply had not been filed. Consequent upon the order passed by this Court yesterday, Shri Lalit Thakur, Under Secretary (PW), Government of Himachal Pradesh has filed his reply-affidavit . Reply had still not been filed. 4. In the aforesaid background the petitioner was constrained to file this petition in this Court on 20th June, 2006. Admittedly until then the reply had not been filed. Consequent upon the order passed by this Court yesterday, Shri Lalit Thakur, Under Secretary (PW), Government of Himachal Pradesh has filed his reply-affidavit . In this reply-affidavit the sequence of events as have been unfolded by the aforesaid deponent suggests an attempt by the aforesaid deponent to lead (or is it mislead) this Court into believing that it was for the first time that on 4 May, 2006, the Additional Advocate General informed the office of the Secretary (PW) that the aforesaid Original Application was pending and that reply was required to be filed in four weeks' time. Unfolding of the sequence of events has been narrated in para 3 (a) of the reply, relevant extract whereof reads thus: That vide letter No. 5262 dated 4.5.2006 the office of Learned Additional Advocate General, State of H.P. intimated the office of Secretary (PW) that the O.A. 1163/04 Sher Singh, Foreman v. State of H.P. was listed before Hon'ble Administrative Tribunal on 3.5.2006 when 4 weeks time was granted to file the reply to the same as last opportunity subject to the cost of Rs. 500/- which shall be recovered from the erring officer.... 5. A perusal of the record of the respondent shows that as early as on 28th April, 2004, the then learned Additional Advocate General had informed the respondent about the passing of the order on 28th April, 2004 by the Tribunal and informing the respondent that reply had to be filed within six weeks from that date. It clearly emerges that the respondent was in the know of the pendency of the Original Application as early as in April, 2004 based upon the aforesaid communication received from the office of the Additional Advocate General. It clearly emerges that the respondent was in the know of the pendency of the Original Application as early as in April, 2004 based upon the aforesaid communication received from the office of the Additional Advocate General. The aforesaid deponent in the aforesaid affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent concealed this material fact from this Court and the sequence of events as has been unfolded by the respondent in the aforesaid affidavit suggest a clear attempt on the part of the respondent to mislead this Court into believing that the respondent was made aware for the first time about the pendency of the Original Application in the Tribunal only after the receipt of the letter dated 4th May, 2006. Prima facie the aforesaid deponent has committed an offence of perjury by swearing a false affidavit and filing the same in this Court for being used in these proceedings. Prima facie I am of the opinion that the aforesaid deponent deserves to be prosecuted for committing the offence punishable under Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code and other related provisions. Before, however, I proceed any further in this matter, I direct the aforesaid deponent to explain and show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted for the aforesaid offence(s). 6. Coming to the merits of the present petition, I find that apart from misleading this Court the fact remains that for over two years during the pendency of the Original Application, the respondent did not file the reply to the Original Application. It did not even care to file the reply despite the fact that the Tribunal had granted last opportunity to the respondent to file the reply. The respondent filed the reply to the Original Application in the Tribunal only yesterday i.e. 28th June, 2006 when it was confronted with the present petition and perhaps when it had no escape route. The aforesaid sequence of events leave me in no doubt that but for the intervention of this Court, the respondent might not have filed the reply in the Original Application for the next couple of years and the petitioner would have continued suffering because of the aforesaid neglect on the part of the respondent. The aforesaid sequence of events leave me in no doubt that but for the intervention of this Court, the respondent might not have filed the reply in the Original Application for the next couple of years and the petitioner would have continued suffering because of the aforesaid neglect on the part of the respondent. Even though the reply has been filed by the respondent yet the fact remains that the petitioner was driven to this avoidable round of litigation in this Court, putting him to unnecessary harassment and undue hardship. Even though the respondent has filed the reply in the Tribunal during the pendency of this petition in this Court, orders have to be passed by this Court for allowing this petition, even though these now may be of formal nature. This apart, the petitioner has to be compensated not only for the ordeal he suffered for two long years but also for approaching this Court invoking this Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The petition is accordingly allowed with costs assessed at Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within two weeks from today. By allowing this petition, this Court hereby records its disapproval in the manner the respondent conducted itself in not filing the reply to the Original Application before the Tribunal for two years. In so far as the issue relating to costs is concerned, even though the respondent is liable to pay the amount of costs to the petitioner, it is entirely upto it to recover this amount from erring official(s) if it so decides. 8. This Court hopes and trusts that the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal shall devise ways and means to ensure that in future pleadings in the Original Applications pending before it are completed as expeditiously as possible and the respondents in the Original Applications are not granted unnecessary adjournments for filing the replies to the Original Applications. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Registrar of the H.P. Administrative Tribunal, Shimla for the information of the learned Chairman of the Tribunal. List on 28th August, 2006 for filing of show cause by Shri Lalit Thakur, Under Secretary (PW), Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla who shall appear in person also on the next date and all dates thereafter unless specifically exempted for this purpose.