Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 57 (MP)

Uma Shankar Dwivedi v. State of M. P.

2015-01-14

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2015
ORDER 1. This petition is listed before this Court in terms of order dated 8.12.2014. The facts relating to passing of that order are that when the matter was posted for hearing before this Court on 14.11.2014, after considering the I.As., filed for taking documents on record, this Court granted a specific stay to the petitioner in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner in following manner :- “Keeping in view the order dated 6.5.2013 placed on record as Annexure-P/17, because on a wrong fact the petitioner is said to be transferred from STC Division, Rewa, treating him as attached whereas he was substantively posted in the said place, the effect and operation of impugned order dated 1.11.2014 (Annexure-P/1) is stayed, meaning thereby the petitioner be allowed to continue on his post in STC Division, Rewa, till next consideration of this interim prayer.” 2. Immediately after passing of this order, when on the next date the matter was listed before this Court, it was contended by learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 6 that the order dated 1.11.2014 sought to be challenged in the writ petition was already carried out by the petitioner on 13.11.2014 and he has joined on the transferred place. Even this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court when the matter was posted for hearing on 14.11.2014. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refuted the said submission of learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 6 and made a categorical statement that he has brought to the notice of the Court the fact that the petitioner has already joined on transferred place on 13.11.2014, on previous date i.e. on 14.11.2014. Recording such a submission, the order was passed on 8.12.2014 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the following manner :- “Learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 6 submits that in compliance of the order dated 1.11.2014, the petitioner had already joined on 13.11.2014 at the place where he was transferred, however, the aforesaid fact was not brought to the notice of the Court which passed the order dated 14.11.2014. The aforesaid submission is refuted by Mr. Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. The aforesaid submission is refuted by Mr. Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he had brought to the notice of the Court the fact that the petitioner had already joined on 13.11.2014 at the place where he was transferred vide order dated 1.11.2014, however, despite the aforesaid fact, the Court granted the order of stay in absolute terms.” 3. After recording this, the Court was of the opinion that an affidavit should be filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the matter may be listed before the same Bench which has passed the order dated 14.11.2014 for consideration of the prayer for continuance of interim relief. 4. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked why a false statement was made in the Court on 8.12.2014 when on 14.11.2014, the fact relating to joining of the petitioner on transferred place was not pointed out to the Court as is alleged in the statement made on 8.12.2014. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under a bonafide mistake by not understanding the meaning of the fact mentioned in the representation of the petitioner, he made such a statement. 5. Such a contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is unbelievable. If the Court is informed about the execution of an order of transfer, it is not conceivable that the Court still would grant stay of an executed order of transfer. Such a situation is not believable. Of course, there may be reasons when facts brought to the notice of the Court are taken into consideration and stay is granted, but normally in such circumstances, the Court would record the reasons why an executed order of transfer is being stayed. This being so, such a statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The statement as made on 8.12.2014 is nothing, but an attempt to prejudice the Court and, therefore, it would amount to a perjury with the Court. Such a conduct of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be viewed lightly, as it would mean nothing less than malign the position of Judge, who was presiding the Bench on 14.11.2014 when the petition was listed for hearing on admission and stay. 6. Such a conduct of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be viewed lightly, as it would mean nothing less than malign the position of Judge, who was presiding the Bench on 14.11.2014 when the petition was listed for hearing on admission and stay. 6. Apart from this, it was the duty on the part of the petitioner to inform his counsel immediately about the act of his joining on the transferred place. A litigant is also supposed to bring to the notice of Court all subsequent events taken place during pendency of the litigation before the Court. A litigant is also not entitled to suppress the material facts and, as such, while the learned counsel for the petitioner is found guilty of making a wrong statement in the Court, the petitioner himself is also guilty of withholding the important information from the Court and as such, is not entitled to any leniency from the Court. 7. Even otherwise, before entertainment of this writ petition by this Court, since the petitioner has already carried out the order of transfer impugned in the writ petition without reserving his right, therefore, the challenge on his part has been abandoned by the petitioner himself and, therefore, it is not necessary for this Court to look into the merits of this writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed of with cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), which is to be recovered by the employer to be deposited in the Legal Aid Society of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to provide financial assistance to the really needy persons. Such a cost be recovered by the respondent No.7 from the petitioner and be deposited with the Legal Aid Society of High Court of Madhya Pradesh within a month from today and a certificate to that effect be produced before the Registrar General, failing which this Court will take action against the Executive Engineer for noncompliance of this order. 9. The writ petition stands dismissed. Ajeet Kumar Singh for petitioner; Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State; Mukesh Agrawal for respondents No.2 to 6.