* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.M. NO.5536/2011 in WP(C) NO.418/2007
Date of Decision: 27th July, 2011
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Vinod Wadhwa, Advocate.
versus
MAMTA RANI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Manish Chauhan, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
ANIL KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This is an application by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 21st February, 2011, dismissing the writ petition in default of appearance of the petitioners and their counsel.
2. The applicant has contended that, on 21st February, 2011, no one could appear on behalf of the petitioners as panel of lawyers, as per the Government of NCT of Delhi, was reconstituted and the previous counsel ceased to be counsel for the Government. The change of panel of lawyers was gazetted in the first week of February, 2011, however all the counsels, who had been put on panel on behalf of the Government of NCT of Delhi, were not notified due to procedural aspects.
3. The applicant has further contended that since the panel of lawyers of the Government of NCT of Delhi had changed the CM No.5536/2011 in WP(C) No.418/2007 Page 1 of 4 counsel who had been appearing earlier ceased to be the Government counsel. Therefore, the earlier counsel in the matter returned the brief. The counsel, who had been appearing in the present writ petition, therefore, did not appear on 21st February, 2011.
4. The brief was entrusted to the new counsel by the Standing Counsel on 28th February, 2011. The applicant has contended that the new counsel made enquiry about the proceedings which took place on 21st February, 2011, realized that the petition was dismissed on account of non-appearance of counsel and anyone on behalf of the petitioners.
5. The application for restoration was, however, filed on 6th April, 2011 beyond the period of thirty days. No explanation has been given as to why the application could not be filed within the period of limitation nor any application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for condonation of delay.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent/non-applicant states that the reply to the application has been filed. However, the reply to the application is not on the record. Learned counsel for the respondent has given the copies of the reply filed on behalf of the respondent. The respondent has contended that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands and the petitioners are guilty of suppression and concealment of true and material facts as the respondent is posted at Directorate (Family Welfare) and her CM No.5536/2011 in WP(C) No.418/2007 Page 2 of 4 Disciplinary Authority is the Director (Family Welfare). However, in place of Department (Family Welfare), the Department (Food & Supplies) is pursuing the matter against the respondent. The respondent/non-applicant has also opposed the application on the merits of the writ petition. The respondent has also contended that while remanding the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority, liberty was given to pass appropriate order within the period of three months. However, with the sole aim to satisfy their egos and to please their controlling officer, i.e. the Chief Secretary, Delhi, the present writ petition had been filed.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent has further contended that though he has not taken the objection that the application for restoration is barred by time, however, it is apparent that the application has not been filed within time and it is for the petitioner to explain as to why the application for restoration could not be filed within time and seek condonation of delay in filing the application.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, on instruction contends that considering the facts and circumstances and status of the respondent, who is a very poor person, the delay may be condoned and application for restoration be allowed, subject to condition of imposing costs on petitioners.
CM No.5536/2011 in WP(C) No.418/2007 Page 3 of 4
9. A perusal of the record reveals that, by order dated 23rd January, 2007, Mr. Rabin Mazumdar, Advocate, appointed as Amicus Curiae for the respondent and the Delhi High Court Legal Services Authority was directed to provide all expenses and fees to the Amicus Curiae. In the circumstances, it was also directed that an on account payment of Rs.5,000/- be made to Mr. Majumdar to conduct the case of the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that, later on, the respondent has appointed him as her counsel.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances, and contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be just and proper, and in the interest of justice, to recall the order dated 21 st February, 2011, subject to cost of Rs.10,000/-, payable to the respondent. Cost be paid within four weeks. Application is allowed. Delay is condoned and the writ petition is restored to its original number. WP(C) No.418/2007 11 . List in the category of 'After Notice Misc. Matters' for consideration on 30th September, 2011.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
JULY 27, 2011 dr CM No.5536/2011 in WP(C) No.418/2007 Page 4 of 4