Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pushpendra Singh Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2014
1
Writ Petition No.20571/2012(PIL)
01.08.2014
Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Peeyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Shri Pranay Verma, Advocate for the respondent no.4. When the matter is called out today, request for adjournment is made by Shri Pandey on the ground that the arguing counsel has gone abroad to attend some Law conference and further he has entered appearance only yesterday.
We invited attention of the Advocate to the order passed on 9.5.2014 as well as 1.7.2014 by this Court and called upon the Advocate for the petitioner to proceed in the matter and, more so, because the petitioner is enjoying interim relief as a result of which the construction of project has been stalled. Since adjournment is insisted, we may show that indulgence on the condition that petitioner shall pay cost quantified at Rs.7,500/- payable to the State of M.P., and Rs.7,500/- to be paid to the respondent no.4 separately. The amount shall be deposited in the Registry of this Court on or before 6.8.2014 failing which this writ petition be listed under caption "Directions" on 8.8.2014 for passing appropriate orders including to direct the Collector, Jabalpur, to initiate action against the petitioner personally for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue. Imposing this cost will not absolve the petitioner of further compensation to be paid to the respondents if the grievance of the respondents that the petition is mischievous and vexatious proceeding were to be accepted at the end of the hearing.
List this matter on 20.8.2014. No request for adjournment on any count at the instance of the petitioner will be 2 Writ Petition No.20571/2012(PIL) entertained in this matter on future dates as the petition is pending at admission stage from the year 2012.
(A. M. Khanwilkar) (Alok Aradhe)
Chief Justice Judge
Saraf