Item No.1
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.33824 of 2016
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. This order is continuation of the orders passed on 08.02.2021
and 25.02.2021. On the last date of hearing when it was pointed out
by learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 that the petitioner
had filed W.P.No.41594 of 2015 through the very same Counsel who is appearing for him in the present case, namely Mr. P. Venkateshwer Rao, and the said petition had culminated in a judgment dated 11.10.2017, which fact had been concealed from this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner had said that he could not recall having filed any such petition on behalf of the petitioner and nor could he recall of any judgment being pronounced in the captioned writ petition on 11.10.2017.
2. In the interest of justice, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 was directed to furnish a complete set of the writ petition as also the judgment to learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to remain present today along with his Counsel.
W.P.No.33824 of 2016 Page 1 of 3
3. Today, the petitioner seeks to explain his conduct by claiming that in his anxiety to be regularised on the subject job of an Attender, he has withheld the fact that the issue raised in the present petition had already been adjudicated by a Division Bench vide judgment dated 11.10.2017, passed in W.P.No.41594 of 2015.
4. As for learned counsel for the petitioner, he has no option but to concede today that not only was he the Counsel who had filed the earlier writ petition, he had also argued the same. That he did not have recall of the previous matter as the file had been taken away by the petitioner, is a flimsy excuse.
5. Having regard to the fact that the earlier writ petition was filed in the year 2015 and while it was still pending, the present writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner through the same counsel on 23.09.2016 and during the pendency of the writ petition, the earlier petition was decided by a Division Bench on 11.10.2017, it is hard to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that he could not recall the earlier writ petition filed by the very same petitioner through him or the judgment passed in the said petition.
6. There was sufficient reason for learned counsel for the petitioner to have been candid enough to apprise the Court immediately after the judgment came to be pronounced on 11.10.2017 in the earlier writ petition and seek leave to withdraw the present writ petition. But, that was not done. Instead, efforts were made to continue pursuing the present petition on merits, which is most W.P.No.33824 of 2016 Page 2 of 3 unacceptable. This amounts to deliberately and wilfully misleading the Court and can invite serious consequences. However, on account of the unqualified apology tendered by the petitioner and his Counsel, we are letting the matter rest here while cautioning both that any such attempt made by them in the future will invite serious consequences.
7. The present petition is dismissed along with the pending applications, if any, in the light of the judgment dated 11.10.2017 passed in W.P.No.41594 of 2015, which has attained finality.
______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ ______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 03.03.2021 Vs/pln W.P.No.33824 of 2016 Page 3 of 3