Gauhati High Court
Rina Das vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 15 December, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010238462022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/371/2022
RINA DAS
W/O NARAYAN DAS,
VILLAGE KHUTABARI, PO BAGDOBA, DIST GOALPARA, ASSAM, 783123
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06
2:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
ASSAM UZAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI 01
3:THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER GOALPARA
DIST GOALPARA
ASSAM
4:THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE SELECTION OF ANGANWADI
WORKER
DUDHNOI ICDS PROJECT
RANGJULI
PO RANGJULI
DIST GOALPARA
ASSAM
5:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER
Page No.# 2/5
DUDHNOI ICDS PROJECT RANGULI
PO RANGJULI
DIST GOALPARA
ASSAM
6:SMTI CHANDRAMA KALITA
D/O BIREN KALITA
W/O KHUTABARI
PO BAGDOBA
DIST GOALPARA
ASSAM
78312
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M H AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 15.12.2022
Heard Mr. M. H. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard
Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam,
appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 4, and Mr. H. Das, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no. 5.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 16.11.2022,
passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No. 169/2022, the
appellant/original respondent no. 6 has preferred this intra-court appeal.
3. It appears from the record of the appeal that vide an order dated 21.10.2022,
the learned Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition, being WP(C) 2192/2021
without there being any representation on behalf of the appellant/original respondent
no. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant/original respondent no. 6 filed the review
Page No.# 3/5
petition seeking review of the order dated 21.10.2022. It was the case of the
appellant/review petitioner before the learned Single Judge that while filing the
Vakalatnama in the writ proceedings, the Junior Advocate of the learned counsel for
the respondent no. 6 inadvertently did not mention the number of the writ petition
and, hence, the names of the counsels for the appellant/original respondent no. 6
were not shown in the record/Causelist and, consequently, the learned counsel for the
appellant/original respondent no. 6 was not aware of the listing of the writ petition
and the learned decided the case ex-parte. It was the further case of the
appellant/review petitioner that though affidavit-in-opposition was filed, the
appellant/original respondent no. 6 could not place her case effectively before the
learned Single Judge in the writ proceedings.
Vide the impugned order dated 16.11.2022, the Review Petition was dismissed
by the learned Single Judge.
4. Mr. M. H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that because
of such inadvertent mistake on the part of his Junior Advocate, the rights of the
appellant is prejudiced to a great extent. As such, the learned Single Judge has
wrongly come to the conclusion that the counsel for the respondent no. 6 was not
diligent in filing Vakalatnama. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted
that though the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the Advocate of
the appellant/original respondent no. 6 was not vigilant and did not appear before the
Court on 13 occasions, when the writ petition was listed before the learned Single
Judge, the fact remains that the appellant was all the time under the impression that
the case of the appellant is being represented before the learned Single Judge. It is,
therefore, urged that this Court be pleased to give one opportunity to the
appellant/original respondent no. 6 to place her case on merits before the learned
Single Judge by allowing this appeal.
5. Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam,
Page No.# 4/5
has stated that though affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the appellant/original
respondent no. 6 in the writ proceedings, no one appeared on her behalf before the
learned Single Judge and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has not committed any
error in proceeding ex parte.
6. Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for respondent no. 5/original writ petitioner has
reiterated the statement made by Ms. M. Bhattacharjee and contended that the
appeal be dismissed.
No other or further submissions or contentions have been made by the learned
counsels for the respective parties.
7. Having considered the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge, it is a
matter of fact that the appellant/original respondent no. 6 also filed affidavit-in-
opposition through her Advocate. However, only because the Vakalatnama was not
numbered properly, the appellant/original respondent no. 6 could not get an
opportunity to represent her case on merits, that too, because of the inadvertent
mistake of the Junior Advocate of the counsel appearing for the appellant/original
respondent no. 6.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court is of the
opinion that the learned Single Judge ought to have taken a lenient view and provided
the appellant an opportunity to place her case on merits by allowing the review
petition. We do not find any deliberate negligence or lethargy on the part of the
appellant. Although the appellant was not represented on 13 occasions when the
matter was listed before the learned Single Judge, it was only because of the
inadvertent mistake on the part of the Junior Advocate of the learned counsel for the
appellant and the same would not mean that the appellant was totally lethargic or was
not vigilant. In addition to that, we find at page 126 of the record of the appeal that
the Order Sheet bears the number of the writ petition, though the Vakalatnama
enclosed to the Order Sheet does not bear the number of the writ petition. We find
Page No.# 5/5
that the appellant/original respondent no. 6 had filed affidavit-in-opposition, which
was on record before the learned Single Judge. We also find in the order dated
21.10.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, the learned Single
Judge has observed that "No one appears for the respondent no. 6, though affidavit-
in-opposition has been filed by the respondent no. 6" . However, we find that there
was no consideration of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 6 while
passing the order dated 21.10.2022.
9. Considering the above bunch of facts, we deem it fit that the appellant should
be given an opportunity of being heard on merits. Accordingly, we hereby quash and
set aside the order dated 16.11.2022 passed in Review Petition No. 169/2022, and
remand the proceedings of WP(C) 2192/2021 back to the learned Single Judge for
deciding the same on merits after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. Learned
counsel for the appellant has assured this Court that the appellant shall be duly
represented before the learned Single Judge and shall also cooperate in expeditious
disposal of the writ petition. However, in the facts of this case, the appellant is saddled
with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the respondent no. 5 within a period of four
weeks from today. After the cost is deposited by the appellant/original respondent no.
6, the matter be listed for hearing before the concerned Court.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with cost.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
