Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ram Sharan Singh vs State Of Raj & Ors on 7 February, 2014
Author: Amitava Roy
Bench: Amitava Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR :: ORDER :: D.B. CIVIL MISC.APPLICATION (W-PIL) NO.106/2013 Ram Saran Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. 07.02.2014 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Mr.P.C.Bhandari for the applicant. ***** BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) :
Heard Mr.P.C.Bhandari, learned counsel for the applicant.
The present application is one seeking recall of the order dated 16.8.2012 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, thereby disposing of D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2658/2003 instituted by the applicant.
The applicant/writ petitioner had initiated the aforementioned writ proceedings seeking the following relief :-
It is therefore most humbly prayed that in the interest of justice this Public Interest Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents may be directed to produce the record of various cases decided by settlement committees and by issue of appropriate writ, order or direction, the amendment made in JDA Act by inserting Section 83-A may kindly be quashed and set aside and the notifications issued by the State Govt. in this regard constituting local and State level Settlement Committees may also be quashed and set aside and the decisions given by such Settlement Committees may be declared as invalid and illegal.
Section 83-A of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), inserted vide Act No.6 of 2001 with effect from 26.5.2001, is extracted hereinbelow:-
83-A. Constitution of Settlement Committee (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute Settlement Committee consisting of a Chairman and such other members, as it may deem fit, to resolve the disputes between the Authority and other persons; and such Committee shall undertake to resolve the dispute whenever so requested by the concerned person.
(2) The Settlement Committee shall have such powers and follow such procedure as may be prescribed by the State Government.
(3) Any Committee already constituted for this purpose shall be deemed to have been constituted under this Act.
(4) The decision given by such Committee shall be binding on the Authority.
By the notification impugned in the writ petition, the State Government had constituted Local and State level Committees, as set out therein. During the pendency of the writ petition, the State Government, vide its notification No.P.12 (82) Navi/3/2000 dated 15.9.2004, withdrew the notification by which Local and State level Committees had been constituted. The applicant/writ petitioner had assailed Section 83-A of the Act and the action taken thereunder of constituting the above Committees as well as the decisions taken thereby to be an encroachment upon the authority and prerogative of the Judiciary.
Be that as it may, on 16.8.2012, a coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order :-
In the writ application, prayer has been made to quash notification issued under Section 83-A of the JDA Act and to declare decisions given by settlement committees as invalid and illegal.
It is submitted by Mr.R.D.Rastogi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that notification issued under Section 83-A of the JDA Act has been withdrawn and settlement committee has also been dissolved on 15.09.2004. He has further submitted that pending cases cannot now be decided, as committees are no more in existence.
Mr.S.D.Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has submitted that now pending cases cannot be dealt with under the notification, which was issued earlier after its withdrawal, the pending cases will not be processed further and they stand dropped.
In view of categorical statement made by Mr.S.D.Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, it is clear that pending cases shall not be dealt with.
With respect to other cases, where settlements have attained finality, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has prayed for liberty to file fresh writ application after impleading the affected persons, in case necessity so arises, he has further prayed for liberty to question validity of Section 83-A of the JDA Act in future, in case necessity so arises. Liberty, as prayed for, is granted.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. I.A. No.27642/2012 also stands disposed of.
It would be apparent from the above text that it was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant/writ petitioner that the notification, which was issued under Section 83-A of the Act, had been withdrawn, and that, the settlement committee had also been dissolved on 15.9.2004, and thus, the cases hitherto pending before it cannot be decided, as it had been rendered non est. The learned Additional Government Counsel representing the respondent-State not only, did endorse this plea, but also submitted that the pending cases cannot be dealt with under the notification, and that, those would not be processed and would stand dropped. The Bench further recorded the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant/writ petitioner that vis-a-vis other cases, where settlements have already attained finality, liberty be granted to file fresh writ application after impleading the affected persons, if necessary. That liberty was also sought for to question the validity of Section 83-A of the Act in future, if warranted, was also noted. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
The applicant has now averred that the submission made on his behalf on 16.8.2012 was in absence of any instructions by him to that effect, and that, being aggrieved by the way his case had been handled, he had lodged a complaint against his learned counsel with the Bar Council of Rajasthan, Jodhpur. The applicant has further stated that he had, in fact, drawn up written arguments on 2.7.2012, which had not been taken note of by this Court, while passing the order dated 16.8.2012. Contending that this order, amongst others, is contrary to the well established principles of judicial discipline, recall thereof has been prayed for. The learned counsel for the applicant has reiterated the above to contend that in the interest of justice, the prayer made, ought to be acceded to.
We have considered the pleaded facts and the documents appended to the writ petition.
Noticeably, though the order, now sought to be recalled, had been passed on 16.8.2012, the instant application has been filed on 18.3.2013 i.e.after a period of six months. The application does not disclose any explanation for this delay.
Be that as it may, it is not disputed that as recorded in the said order, as on that date, the notification under Section 83-A of the Act constituting the committees had been withdrawn. The correctness of the submission made on behalf of the State-respondents that the cases pending before the committee, on that date, would not be further processed and would stand dropped, has not been questioned as well. In this factual premise, the submission made on behalf of the applicant/writ petitioner by his learned counsel, as is recorded in the order dated 16.8.2012, in our comprehension, cannot be branded as illogical and unwarranted. The applicant's plea that the learned counsel did so in absence of his instructions, does not commend for acceptance. On a perusal of the written arguments dated 2.7.2012 available on records, in view of the intervening developments, as recorded in the order dated 16.8.2012 we, even otherwise, do not consider it either expedient or necessary to accede to the request made in the present application.
In this view of the matter, having regard to the constricted scope of scrutiny of an application to recall a judicial order passed after hearing the learned counsel for the parties present, we are disinclined to entertain this application. It is thus, rejected.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (AMITAVA ROY),C.J. Skant/-
All the corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Shashi Kant Gaur, PA