A. Narsimha Reddy vs The State Of Telangana,
2021 Latest Caselaw 659 Tel

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.

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

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