In present application, the applicants have prayed that:-
"8(A) Be pleased to stay the order dated August 24, 2012 impugned in the aforesaid Special Civil Application No.11706/12;
(B) Be pleased to direct that the Joint Charity Commissioner shall not direct the applicant herein to produce any material on record in compliance of his earlier order dated 22.07.2011 including ex-parte order dated August 24, 2012;
(C) Be pleased to pass ad-interim relief in terms of prayer 4(B) above and same be confirmed after hearing the respondents'"
2. The applicants herein are the original petitioners in a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.11706 of 2012, which is pending. Right from the first date on which the matter was listed for hearing, on most of the occasions, the hearing of the writ petition was adjourned on account of request or submission made by learned advocate for the petitioners.
3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners had taken out application being C.A. No.10459 of 2012 wherein the applicant have prayed that:-
"4(A) Be pleased to stay the order dated August 24, 2012 impugned in the aforestated Special Civil Application No.11706/12;
(B) Be pleased to direct that the Charity Commissioner shall not direct the applicant herein to produce any material or record in compliance of his earlier order dated 22.07.2011 including ex-parte order dated August 24, 2012;
(C) Be pleased to pass ad-interim relief in terms of prayer 4(B) above and same be confirmed after hearing the respondents;"
4. During the pendency of the writ petition and the said Civil Application being C.A.No.10459 of 2012, the petitioners have taken out present application and prayed for the abovequoted reliefs.
5. Present application was listed yesterday when Ms. Prajapati, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted that the applicants herein want to move a draft amendment. Therefore, time was granted and hearing of application was adjourned to today.
6. On perusal of the application, it is noticed that the applicants herein have made various allegations in para-4 and 5 of the application, which read thus:-
"4. The matter was lastly placed before this Hon'ble Court for hearing on November 02, 2012. The next date of hearing is fixed on November 29, 2012. The applicants state that in view of the sick note filed by the Advocate for the applicants on that day, though no statements have been made by the respondents and note has been circulated by the Advocate of the respondents that he withdraws his statement and would not press for hearing before the respondent no.2. Copy of the letter dated 2nd November, 2012, addressed by Mr. Purohit, Advocate, is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A Colly to this application.
5. The main matter was listed before the respondent no.2 on November 02, 2012. There was insistence for hearing of the said matter. Though statement was made by Mr. C.B.Upadhyay, who appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2, and pressed for hearing. Therefore, said fact was notified to the Advocate for the applicants by the Advocate who appeared on their behalf before the respondent no.2. Having received the said information, the Advocate of the applicants spoke with Mr. Upadhyay and informed him that the statement made by him at the bear is in vogue and respondent no.2 shall not proceed. Mr. Upadhayay informed the Advocate of the applicants that he would inquire from the respondent no.2 and inform the Advocate after some time. The Advocate of the applicants was informed by Mr. Upadhayay that no hearing was insisted and matter is adjourned to December 15, 2012, and the information received by the Advocate of the applicants that the respondent no.2 is proceeding with the matter is not correct. Mr. Upadhayay has also spoken with the Advocate of the applicants and he has already spoken with the respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 has informed that the next date of hearing is fixed on December 05, 2012, but however, to the utter shock and surprise to the applicants, the respondent no.2 recorded the order at the fag end of the day, fixing the matter on November 09, 2012 and directed to produce the order, if any, recorded by this Hon'ble Court of staying further proceedings of the main matter and if no such order is produced on that day, the order should be complied with the record so directed which was placed before the respondent no.2. The applicants have time and again made statement before this Hon'ble Court that the respondent no.2 is prejudiced against the present applicants; the application submitted by the applicant for hearing of the matter for recalling of the ex-parte order is not heard; no formal order has been recorded on those applications and the statement has been recorded in the impugned order that he has heard those applications. In fact, interim order recorded by the respondent no.2 is the main prayer which is prayed in the main petition and, therefore, in fact the interim order if complied with, the matter stands allowed at the threshold without being tried. Therefore, the conduct of the respondent no.2 is clear on the face of it and is unbecoming to an Officer who discharged his quasi-judicial functions. The conduct of the respondent no.2 is also required to be closely scrutinized by this Hon'ble Court. The ex-parte orde4r which was granted by this very officer remained dormant after the respondent no.2 was transferred. The respondent no.2 has been reposted within a short span of time and all of a sudden an urgency has arisen after the respondent no.2 has assumed the office on reposting on the said post. The respondent no.2 without being trying the main matter is insisting for compliance of the ad-interim order clearly shows that all is not well in this proceedings. The respondent no.2 is prejudicially placed against the present applicants. The conduct of the respondent no.2 deserves to be condemned for the simple reason that Mr. Upadhayay who has informed him on telephone that the statement made by Mr. Upadhayay is in vogue and, therefore, he shall not proceed with the further hearing of the matter and thereafter the respondent No.2 informed said Mr. Upadhayay that matter is adjourned to December 15, 2012, the respondent no.2 had gone back to his words and provided incorrect information to Mr. Upadhayay and recorded the order at the end of the day that matter be adjourned on 09.11.2012 and the order, if any, shall be placed before him passed by the Hon'ble High Court of restraining the said proceedings. This is a clear case of overreaching the judicial process and the conduct of the respondent no.2 is nothing but becoming over smart. The respondent no.2 is playing smart with this Hon'ble Court and his Advocate. In the aforestated circumstances, the respondent no.2 deserves an explanation to this Hon'ble Court of his conduct. No officer can be permitted to play smart with the Hon'ble Court. If that is permitted, there will not be sanctity of proceedings."
6.1 Even at the time of hearing of the application, learned advocate for the applicants, has emphasized and read out the entire averments made in the application.
6.2 The averments made in the application show that certain serious allegations have been made against the respondent No.2 and reply from the concerned respondent is necessitated.
6.3 At the time of hearing of the application, the Court told learned advocate for the applicants that the writ petition may be heard on merits for the purpose of admission as well as for considering petitioners'/applicants' request for interim relief, however, learned advocate for the applicants, has submitted that the writ petition is not listed for hearing today and therefore, the writ petition may not be heard.
7. In view of the fact that various allegations are made against the respondent No.2 in present application, it appears appropriate to allow time to the said respondent against whom the allegations are made.
Therefore, Notice returnable on 27.11.2012.
Direct service is permitted.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc