Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand And Others ... vs Deep Chandra Bhandari on 26 February, 2019
Author: R.C. Khulbe
Bench: Ramesh Ranganathan, R.C. Khulbe
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 105 of 2019
With
Delay Condonation Application No. 1716 of 2019
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Appellants
Vs.
Deep Chandra Bhandari ...Respondent
Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand/appellants.
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, learned counsel for the respondent.
Dated: 26th February, 2019
Coram: Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) The application to condone the delay of 94 days in preferring this appeal is not opposed. The delay is, therefore, condoned
2. The order under appeal (order in WPSS No. 3561 of 2018 dated 11.10.2018) records the learned counsel for the parties having made a statement at the Bar that the controversy, involved in the writ petition, is squarely covered by the judgment in Special Appeal No. 274 of 2008 dated 18.02.2010 as well as in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 350 of 2011 dated 24.03.2017.
3. Shri Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, would submit that a batch of writ petitions were being heard; some of them were covered by the aforesaid judgments against which appeals were not preferred; the present case is not one such; and, since the order under appeal erroneously records that the subject matter of the writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment in SPA No. 274 of 2008 dated 18.02.2010, the appellants are entitled to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court.
24. This Court is bound to accept the statement of the judges, recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in Court. It cannot allow statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar. (State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another: AIR 1982 SCC 1249). Disputes, as to what transpired in a Court, cannot ordinarily be agitated in appeal, and the remedy available to a party, which claims that the learned Single Judge had erroneously recorded their submissions, is only by way of a review.
5. Shri Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, seeks permission to withdraw this appeal, with liberty to file a review petition; and, if need be, to question the order, passed in the review application, in appeal later. Leaving it open to the appellants to avail the remedy of a review, and granting liberty as sought for, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
6. No costs.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.) 26.02.2019 26.02.2019 Shiksha