Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

.

From the above, it would be evident that the Division Bench has not taken into consideration the fact that the learned counsel who was appearing for the Government in the writ appeals was not the counsel appearing before the learned Single Judge and, more so, the letter dated 19.08.2019, on which reliance had been placed by the learned State Counsel, was a subsequent document, because the judgment was passed by the learned Single Judge on 29.01.2019. Thereby, a new document had been introduced at the stage of the appeal by the learned counsel, who had not addressed before the learned Single Judge, and on the basis of the materials available on the record itself if the learned Single Judge had passed the judgment, the same should have been looked into in its proper perspective, instead of looking into the new documents introduced at the stage of the appeal, which is not permissible.

6. The argument, as recorded in paragraph-22 of order dated 22.06.2021 of the Division Bench, was not advanced either by the learned counsel appearing for the State or by the learned counsel appearing for OMC before the learned Single Judge, so as to give reply to the same. In any case, in appellate stage by introducing new documents, the State had tried to make out a new case, which is not permissible at all in the eye of law.

7. Surprisingly, in paragraph-26 of the order dated 22.06.2021 of the Division Bench, it is recorded that the OMC has supported the stand taken by the State, but the OMC had not filed any appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, which has been candidly admitted before this Court by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the OMC. This apart, the Senior Advocate, who argued the matter before the Division Bench, was not the counsel appearing for the OMC before learned Single Judge. On the basis of pleadings available on record, when the OMC, in one hand supported the stand of the petitioners before the learned Single Judge, it cannot turn around and take different stands at different places. This itself indicates that the statement made by the OMC before the learned Single Judge is not the same as before the Division Bench. With the change of the counsel, the stand has been changed. This question was confronted to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the OMC and it has been candidly admitted that the counsel, who was appearing before the learned Single Judge, was not the counsel before the Division Bench. Thereby, on the basis of the document introduced before the Division Bench, which had not been placed before the learned Single Judge, a new case has been totally made out, which is contrary to the provisions of the law.

15. In course of hearing Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State filed an affidavit on 02.07.2021 sworn to by opposite party no.1 introducing 16 documents. It has been mentioned in the heading of the affidavit that such documents have been filed pursuant to the order dated 22.06.2021 passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.613 of 2019. But on perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench dated 22.06.2021, it is found that there is no such direction to introduce such new documents so as to be taken into consideration for adjudication by the learned Single Judge on remand. Therefore, vide order dated 08.12.2021, this Court rejected such affidavit filed by the State-opposite party and proceeded with the matter taking into consideration whatever materials were available at the time, when the matter was heard before this Court and judgment was delivered on 29.01.2019. The extraneous documents which were placed before the Division Bench and also before this Court by way of affidavit on 14.07.2021 were declined to be taken into consideration. Adhering to the judicial discipline, in compliance to the order dated 22.06.2021, this Court called upon the respective parties to address the Court afresh.