High Court · 2021

M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 in W.P.No.19153 of 2008and M.P.No.1 of 2013 in Rev.Aplw.Sr.No.13749 of 2013M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 in W.P.No.19153 of 2008and M.P.No.1 of 2013 in Rev.Aplw.Sr.No.13749 of 2013S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.Seeking modification of the order passed in W.P.No.19153 of 2008 dated 29.09.2008 as well as praying for extension of time, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 are filed by the revenue/respondents. Further, a review application in Rev.Aplw.No.Sr.13749 of 2013 was also filed by the revenue/respondents against the order passed W.P.No.19153 of 2008 along with a condone delay petition in M.P.No.1 of 2013, for condonation of delay of 1514 days.2. When these Miscellaneous Petitions were taken up for hearing, Mr.B.Sathish Sundar, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that he has given change of vakalat to the writ petitioner and a memo to that effect is filed.3. This Court is of the considered opinion that the review application is pending before this Court for the past about 8 years. All along the learned counsel for the review petitioner on record was continuing as a counsel on record. When 1/7 http://www.judis.nic.in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 in W.P.No.19153 of 2008and M.P.No.1 of 2013 in Rev.Aplw.Sr.No.13749 of 2013the matter is listed for final hearing, it is represented that the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner made a submission that he has given the change of vakalat. Undoubtedly, it is a privileged communication and transaction between the lawyer and the litigant. Courts cannot have any say in respect of such communications or transactions between the lawyers and the litigants, unless it is brought to the notice of this Court that some misconduct or otherwise is committed. When handing over of the bundle is or a communication between the lawyer and the litigant is a privileged communication, it is the duty of the litigant as well as the lawyer to make alternate arrangements either by appearing in person or by engaging any other Advocate of the choice of the litigant. 4. At the outset any litigant approaching the Court of law is expected to pursue the matter diligently either in person or through a lawyer. The lawyer is also expected to perform his duties not only towards his client, but also towards the Court. The lawyer is expected to assist the Court in all circumstances and the said duty is an obligation as enunciated in the Bar Council of India Rules. Thus, any lawyer is having the duty towards his client, duty towards his colleagues and duty towards the Court. All the three obligations are to be fulfilled without any 2/7 http://www.judis.nic.in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 in W.P.No.19153 of 2008and M.P.No.1 of 2013 in Rev.Aplw.Sr.No.13749 of 2013default by a lawyer.5. Under these circumstances, no lawyer can come to the Court and simply say that they have handed over the bundle to the client and that they won't argue the case. Courts cannot take the responsibility of conducting the case in respect of such litigant or on behalf of such lawyers. Even in cases where memo is filed, it is the duty of the lawyer, who received the legal fees and the litigant, to ensure that an alternate arrangement is made to represent the case, so as to assist the Court for the effective disposal of the cases. 6. This being the principles to be followed, at the request of this Court, learned counsel Mr.B.Sathish Sundar, assisted the Court and accordingly, the following orders are passed.7. The review application is filed mainly on the ground that there is an error apparent while applying the ratio of the decision rendered in WP No.18918 of 2000 and connected batch of cases on the facts of the present case, which is “Any person who has given statement, if not produced in the cross examination then the 3/7 http://www.judis.nic.in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 in W.P.No.19153 of 2008and M.P.No.1 of 2013 in Rev.Aplw.Sr.No.13749 of 2013adjudication authority should ignore such materials while passing the final orders.”8. The learned counsel for the review petitioners/respondents made a submission that the order passed in WP No.18918 of 2000 and the connected batch of cases cannot be applied in respect of the facts and circumstances of the present case, as it is clearly distinguishable from the case on hand. However, the review petitioners are inclined to consider the case of the writ petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice issued independently on merits and in accordance with law.9. This Court is of the considered opinion that once a show cause notice is issued, the noticee is expected to submit his objections, explanations, documents to the competent authority and the authority is bound to consider the same independently on merits and take a decision and pass orders by following the procedures as contemplated under law. 10. As far as relying on a judgment in a batch of case is concerned, unless the facts in those cases are adjudicated elaborately in comparison with the facts and circumstances of the cases, placed before the Court, the same would cause 4/7 http://www.judis.nic.in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 in W.P.No.19153 of 2008and M.P.No.1 of 2013 in Rev.Aplw.Sr.No.13749 of 2013unnecessary implications in the matter of deciding the issues independently and in accordance with law. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the reference made in paragraph No.5 of the order dated 29.09.2008 passed in WP No.19153 of 2008, is to be modified. Such modifications are essential in view of the fact that it is brought to the notice of this Court that the facts and circumstances of the present case are not akin to that of the facts and circumstances decided by this Court in WP No.18918 of 2000 etc. batch of cases. When the facts are distinguishable then the case of the petitioner is to be decided independently. Accordingly the order dated 29.09.2008 passed in WP No.19153 of 2008 stands modified in respect of paragraph No.5 as under."Considering the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to commence and complete the entire process pursuant to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner by the respondent on 27.01.2005 and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law and by affording N opportunity to the writ petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No Costs.”11. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Petitions viz., M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 in 5/7 http://www.judis.nic.in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 in W.P.No.19153 of 2008and M.P.No.1 of 2013 in Rev.Aplw.Sr.No.13749 of 2013WP No.19153 of 2008, are allowed. Registry is directed to issue a fresh order copy, forthwith.12. Further, in view of the orders passed in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 in WP No.19153 of 2009, no further orders are required in the Review Petition viz., Rev.Aplw.Sr.No.13749 of 2013 and hence, M.P.No.1 of 2013 and Rev.Aplw.Sr.No.13749 of 2013, are closed.16.09.2021ars6/7 http://www.judis.nic.in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 in W.P.No.19153 of 2008and M.P.No.1 of 2013 in Rev.Aplw.Sr.No.13749 of 2013S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.arsM.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013in W.P.No.19153 of 2008and M.P.No.1 of 2013 in Rev.Aplw.Sr.No.13749 of 201316.09.20217/7