Delhi High Court
Madan Singh & Ors. vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 September, 2017
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 426/2008
MADAN SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. H.P. Chakravorti, Advocate.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Madhulika Agarwal, Advocate
along with Mr. J.K Singh, Standing
Counsel for Railways for respondent
Nos. 1-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
ORDER
% 18.09.2017
1. The present petition has remained pending for the past nine years only
for effecting service on the respondents, numbering 50. Out of the 50
respondents, respondent Nos. 5 to 50 are private respondents.
2. The petitioners, who were initially engaged as casual labourers in the
Signal & Telecom Department of Construction/Division in Northern
Railway, Delhi, on different dates from the year 1970 onwards, had raised an
issue pertaining to their seniority, vis-a-vis the private respondents no. 5-50
before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said petition was however
dismissed by the Tribunal, vide judgment dated 03.11.2006.
3. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners had filed the present
petition, on which notice to show cause was issued on 18.01.2008. On the
said date, appearance was entered on behalf of the respondent Nos.
1-4/Northern Railways and notice was issued to the remaining private
respondents.
4. Thereafter, several opportunities were granted to the petitioners to
serve the respondents but learned counsel failed to file the process fee. During
the pendency of the present petition, petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 7 expired.
Similarly, some private respondents have also expired. Later on, the
petitioners had sought deletion of four of the private respondents. However,
no steps were taken by the counsel for the petitioners to serve the remaining
respondents.
5. On 08.01.2013, learned counsel for the petitioners had stated that
counsel for respondent Nos. 1-4 had not furnished him the correct addresses
of some of the respondents. However, it was noticed that the petitioners had
not taken steps for effecting service at least on such of the respondents whose
correct addresses were duly provided to the learned counsel for the
petitioners on 22.11.2012.
6. On 12.03.2013, learned counsel for the petitioners had stated that he
may be able to verify the fresh addresses of some of the respondents and had
sought time to file the process fee. On 06.05.2013, respondent Nos.
31,33,34,36,37, 42 and 43 had appeared in person and stated that they did not
wish to file a counter affidavit in response to the petition. On the said date,
the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that he intended to move an
application for effecting substituted service on the remaining unserved
respondents. However, no such application came to be filed till 19.12.2013.
7. On 19.12.2013, notice was issued on an application filed by the
petitioner for effecting substituted service on the unserved respondents.
Though, citations for publication of notice were duly issued, the petitioners
failed to take any steps for effecting publication, as directed.
8. A perusal of the order sheets shows that after 28.07.2014, learned
counsel for the petitioners had stopped appearing in the case. As a result, the
writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16.12.2014.
Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application for seeking restoration of
the writ petition that was listed in court on 23.02.2015, but the said
application also came to be dismissed as none had appeared for the
petitioners.
9. In March 2015, the petitioners filed another application for seeking
restoration of the application for restoration of the writ petition, on which,
notice was issued on 24.03.2015. The said application was allowed on
14.07.2015 and on 18.08.2015, the restoration application filed by the
petitioners was allowed and the writ petition was restored to its original
position. Thereafter, the petitioners were directed to take steps to serve the
unserved respondents. However, learned counsel did not take any steps to file
the process fee for effecting service on them. Further, no steps have been
taken to file a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1
to 4 as long back as July 2009.
10. From 18.11.2015 till 02.05.2017, several opportunities were granted to
the counsel for the petitioners to take steps to serve the unserved respondents.
On 18.08.2017, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had stated that
they had already furnished the addresses of 18 respondents to the counsel for
the petitioner on 31.07.2017. Despite that, no steps have been taken by the
learned counsel for the petitioners to file the process fee for effecting service
on the said respondents. In fact, learned counsel has been fairly erratic in
appearing in the present case. The order sheets, particularly the order sheets
dated 02.02.2011, 18.07.2011, 09.04.2012, 05.11.2012, 08.09.2014,
14.11.2014, 16.12.2014, 23.02.2015, 18.11.2015, 02.12.2015, 29.08.2016,
09.09.2016, 11.01.2017, 20.03.2017, 24.07.2017 and 18.08.2017 clearly
show that counsel for the petitioners had not even attended the court
proceedings on these dates. He was not even present before the Registrar on
18.08.2017.
11. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners states that there is no need to
serve the private respondents and their service should be dispensed with. We
are unable to accept the said submission for the reason that an issue of inter se
seniority has been raised in the present petition, which necessitates their
presence.
12. The petitioners have been grossly negligent in attending the court
proceedings and prosecuting the petition effectively. The fact that they did not
take any steps as per the direction issued on various dates including the dates
17.12.2008 , 09.04.2012 , 01.05.2012, 08.01.2013, 12.03.2013, 19.12.2013,
28.07.2014, 08.09.2014, 14.11.2014, 16.12.2014, 18.08.2015 and
25.07.2016, is ample proof of their negligence and casual behaviour. On
account of their inaction, the present petition that has been hanging fire for the
past about one decade, only for effecting the service on the private
respondents. Quite obviously, the petitioners are not serious about pursuing
the present petition.
13. In such circumstances, we have no option but to dismiss the present
petition for non-prosecution. Ordered accordingly.
14. File be consigned to the record room.
HIMA KOHLI, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
SEPTEMBER 18, 2017
ss
