Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1501 (PNJ)

Shri Dinesh Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2021-08-05

JASWANT SINGH, SANT PARKASH

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the proceedings are being conducted in virtual court Applicant - Dinesh Kumar has filed the present application for recalling of order dated 18.09.2014 passed by this Court, whereby the main writ petition was ordered to be dismissed with liberty to petitioner to make an application for revival if cause of action still survives. Consequently relief for revival of the main petition has also been sought. 2. As per learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner, the delay in filing the application has occurred on account of the fact that petitioner was earlier represented by Sh. Jaskirat Singh Sidhu, Advocate, who died and therefore, could not contact him, especially when writ petition stood admitted. However, the matter was thereafter being looked after by another counsel with whom he had no contact and as such, the petitioner could not represent or convey instructions to his counsel. It is further submitted that applicant came to know about the disposal of his writ petition in the last week of April, 2021 and on this, he immediately contacted the present counsel and engaged him. Lastly, it is submitted that since liberty was granted to him to make an application for revival in case cause of action survives, therefore the instant application is very well maintainable. 3. On the strength of the aforesaid facts, it has been argued that there is no fault on part of the applicant and therefore the main writ petition be restored, especially in view of the fact that the petitioner stands acquitted in FIR No. 99 of 1997 vide judgment dated 08.12.2017 passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi, which has been further upheld by Additional District Judge-02, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi, vide judgment dated 24.12.2019 and thus, a valid cause of action survives in the instant writ petition. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner and scrutinized the paper-book. 5. Admittedly, the applicant was a Judicial Officer in State of Haryana, who joined as Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class on 29.05.1998. A letter dated 20.07.1998 (Annexure R-2/1) was received from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime & Railways, Delhi, seeking grant of permission to arrest the petitioner in case FIR No. 99 of 1997 under Sections 177/193/419/420/467/468/471/448/120-B of IPC, Police Station Hauz Khas, New Delhi. A letter dated 20.07.1998 (Annexure R-2/1) was received from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime & Railways, Delhi, seeking grant of permission to arrest the petitioner in case FIR No. 99 of 1997 under Sections 177/193/419/420/467/468/471/448/120-B of IPC, Police Station Hauz Khas, New Delhi. The Full Court, while granting permission for investigation, placed the petitioner under suspension in its meeting held on 29.07.1998. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 04.08.1998 (Annexure R-2/2). It is on account of petitioner apprehending his arrest or Dismissal from Service submitted a one month's notice of resignation on 10.08.1998 (Annexure P-6) on medical grounds without any medical certificate in support. The one month expired on 09.09.1998. The resignation was accepted on 14.10.1998 (Annexure P-11). The alleged telegram for withdrawal of resignation was received on 12.10.1998, i.e. much after the expiry of the notice period. Consequently, this order dated 14.10.1998 (P-ll) was challenged before this Court in September, 2000 and the matter was admitted vide order dated 11.03.2003 without grant of interim stay. From the facts, it is, therefore, clear that the applicant in not only well educated but is also thoroughly conversant with law. 6. It is settled position of law that a litigant is expected to be vigilant of his rights, especially in the instant case when he has remained a Judicial Officer himself. It is not at all expected from the litigant to sleep over his rights for nearly seven (07) years and then wake up from his slumber and file an application by alleging that on account of the death of his previous counsel he could not pursue his writ petition with him. The plea regarding death of his previous counsel is also a made-up / false story as it is evident that the petition was signed by two counsels viz. Mr. Jaskirat Singh Sidhu and Mr. Vikram Aggarwal and the main writ petition was argued by a Senior Counsel. Meaning thereby, the petitioner was being represented by not one but two counsels and further admittedly, they both were working in the chamber of the Senior Counsel, whose associates / assisting counsels have been representing petitioner uptil order dated 18.09.2014, when the petition was dismissed. Meaning thereby, the applicant has not come to the Court with clean hands and has tried to mislead this Court. Meaning thereby, the applicant has not come to the Court with clean hands and has tried to mislead this Court. 6.1 Seen from another angle, although it is the duty of the subsequent counsel to pursue with the client after the death of original counsel, however, it does not mean that the litigant is absolved of his duty to take care of his own case. The litigant cannot be permitted to take shelter of the fact that his counsel has died, especially when the litigant himself has remained a Judicial Officer. It is infact, duty of the litigant to know all the details of his case, particularly when, it is not his case that he is illiterate or that he is indisposed due to any difficultly. 6.2 The applicant, in the present case, has not been diligent enough about his rights and has let much water flow through. No sufficient cause or ground has been shown to us by the applicant for completely ignoring his own case. Merely, because liberty was granted by this Court vide order dated 18.09.2014 for revival of case, if any cause of action survives, does not ipso facto entails grant of relief. Good sufficient cause is still required to be shown for not approaching the Court in time. 6.3 Thus, complete inaction on part of applicant for more nearly seven (07) years, is sufficient to decline the application filed by applicant for revival of main petition by recalling order dated 18.09.2014. 7. Another aspect that weighed heavily in the mind of this Court is the fact that a perusal of the application shows that the applicant is trying to play mischief with this Court by covertly putting the entire blame on the death of his previous counsel. It is clear that the applicant took a conscious decision to resign in view of the registration of an FIR at Delhi and now he has come up with this application because he has been acquitted by Criminal Court vide order dated 08.12.2017 duly affirmed by Appellate Court vide order dated 24.12.2019. It is clear that the applicant took a conscious decision to resign in view of the registration of an FIR at Delhi and now he has come up with this application because he has been acquitted by Criminal Court vide order dated 08.12.2017 duly affirmed by Appellate Court vide order dated 24.12.2019. 7.1 This clandestine approach of the applicant has also played a crucial role, while dismissing the application for recalling of the order dated 18.09.20214, as it seems that the applicant has taken a calculated chance to approach this Court after his order of acquittal and revive an otherwise stale claim for recalling an order passed nearly seven (07) years ago. 8. In view of the above, finding no merit, the instant application is dismissed.