The present application has been preferred by the Party-in-Person with the following prayers:
"Your Lordships will be pleased to:-
1. Make the correction in the order dated 01.12.2010 passed by the Honourable Justice Smt.Abhilasha Kumari that : as I have said in Para No: 2 and No.3 here above.
1. My prayer No.2 above may please be granted and the departmental inquiry 44 of 1993 may please be set aside and exonerate me in the departmental inquiry No.44 of 1993.
2. My prayer No.3 above may please be granted and the impugned charge sheet issued to me dated 12.03.1993 in departmental inquiry No.49 of 1994 may please be quashed and the departmental inquiry No.49 of 1994 may please be set aside and issue order exonerating me in the departmental inquiry No.49/94.
3. Direct the government respondent No.2 for my promotion and to revise my pay scale at Deputy Director Forensic Science Laboratory, Gandhinagar with retrospective effect and pay me the pay difference arrears and revised pension arrears.
4. My other prayers in S.C.A. N:2056 of 2007 are to be kept as such."
Heard Mr.M.M.Lahori, Party-in-Person, at length and in great detail.
It is submitted by Mr.Lahori that he has not made statements as recorded in order dated 01.12.2010, nor given any concession that he does not press prayer No.2 in Special Civil Application No.2056 of 2007, regarding Departmental Inquiry No.44 of 1993 as the said prayer no longer survives since the Censure given by the Government in the said Inquiry has been deleted by the Government Notification dated 16.05.1996. It is further contended that he has also not submitted that prayer No.3 in Special Civil Application No.2056 of 2007 regarding Departmental Inquiry No.49 of 1994 does not survive in view of order dated 10.07.2008 passed in Special Civil Application No.2056 of 2007. The Party-in-Person further contends that he has made the prayers in Special Civil Application No.2056 of 2007, all of which survive, and an error has been committed by the Court in passing order dated 01.12.2010.
It is further emphatically urged by the Party-in-Person that he has committed no mistake; but even if such a mistake has been committed, the same ought to be rectified by this Court.
It is further urged by the Party-in-Person that where the Court is satisfied that an admission was made by inadvertence or erroneously and there was no mala fide on the part of the applicant, it would be a denial of justice not to permit the party to rectify such admission, or correct the mistake.
The Party-in-Person has further submitted that the judgment dated 14.10.2011 passed in Special Civil Application No.2056 of 2007 and connected matters has been challenged by him by filing a Review Application, therefore this Court ought to rectify the error committed in the order dated 01.12.2010, and grant the prayers made in the application.
In support of the above submissions, the Party-in-Person has placed reliance on the judgment in Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar - (2003)4 SCC 579.
Mr.Pranav S.Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2, appears on supply of advance copy of the application, and submits that the Special Civil Application has been disposed of by judgment dated 14.10.2011, therefore the prayers in the present application would no longer survive in view of the final decision of the matter.
Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, and on perusal of the contents of the impugned order and other documents on record, it emerges that the application has ostensibly been filed for "correction of error in order dated 01.12.2010" passed by this Court, as reflected in the heading on Page-2 thereof. However, the scope of the prayers made in the application is far wider and touches upon the merits of the matter. The present application has been filed in Special Civil Application No.2056 of 2007. The record reveals that Special Civil Application No.2056 of 2007 with Civil Application No.9943 of 2007 in Special Civil Application No.2056 of 2007 with Civil Application No.2171 of 2009 in Civil Application No.9943 of 2007 with Special Civil Application No.6338 of 1995, have been rejected and the Civil Applications disposed of, by a detailed and reasoned judgment dated 14.10.2011, that takes care of all the prayers made by the Party-in-Person in all the petitions and connected applications, including that regarding Departmental Inquiry No.44/1993 and Departmental Inquiry No.49/1994. As the judgment dated 14.10.2011 is a common judgment rendered in all the petitions and Civil Applications filed by the applicant, covering all aspects, the prayers made in the present application, insofar as they touch upon the merits of the matter and are a repetition of the prayers made in the main petition regarding the two Departmental Inquiries, cannot be granted.
Regarding the remaining prayer for making a correction in the order dated 01.12.2010, it deserves to be noted that the said order, is an interlocutory order that can have no separate existence after the main petition, being Special Civil Application No.2056 of 2007, has been decided finally by judgment dated 14.10.2011. It is a settled position of law that an interim order would merge with the final order or judgment that may be rendered in the matter. Reference may fruitfully be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Machado Brothers and others - AIR 2004 SC 2093, wherein the Apex Court has held as below:
"27. While dismissing the application I.A. No.20651/2001 the Courts below proceeded not on the basis that the original notice of termination has not become infructuous, but on the basis that the said application lacks in bona fide and if the said application is allowed the interlocutory injunction hitherto enjoyed by the plaintiff will get vacated and consequently the plaintiff will be prejudiced. The question for our consideration now is whether such ground can be considered as valid and legal. While so considering the said question one basic principle that should be borne in mind is that interlocutory orders are made in aid of final orders and not vice versa. No interlocutory order will survive after the original proceeding comes to an end. This is a well established principle in law as could be seen from the judgment of this Court in Kavita Trehan (Mrs.) and another v. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. (1994(5) SCC 380), wherein it is held:
"Upon dismissal of the suit, the interlocutory order stood set aside and that whatever was done to upset the status quo, was required to be undone to the extent possible."
28. Therefore, in our opinion, the Courts below erred in continuing an infructuous suit just to keep the interlocutory order alive which in a manner of speaking amounts to putting the cart before the dead horse."
In the present case, the judgment dated 14.10.2011, being the final decision, would prevail, and the order dated 01.12.2010, would no longer exist, hence the prayer made in the application for correction of the order dated 01.12.2010, is merely stated to be rejected.
It is noticed that the date on the application is 08.03.2011, that is, before the judgment dated 14.10.2011. The affidavit in support thereof has also been sworn on the same date, and the application has been admitted to file by the Registry on 15.03.2011, i.e. before the decision dated 14.10.2011. As Special Civil Application No.2056 of 2007, from which the present application arises, has since been finally disposed of on 14.10.2011, along with other cognate matters, the present application would now become infructuous after the final decision of the petition.
This Court could have refused to entertain the application on the above two grounds, but looking to the vehement insistence of the Party-in-Person and the nature of the averments made in the application, it is considered appropriate to decide the same.
The order dated 01.12.2010 has been passed on the basis of the statements made by the Party-in-Person and what has transpired before this Court on 01.12.2010. It is unfortunate that now the Party-in-Person is seeking to resile from the statements made before this Court and is taking a totally different stand. As such, there is no error or mistake in the said order, warranting, interference by this Court.
The Party-in-Person has cited a judgment in the case of Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar (supra), laying emphasis on Head Note-D which pertains to judicial review of administrative action.
Though the principles of law enunciated in the above-quoted judgment cannot be disputed, the said judgment would not be applicable to the present review application as no administrative action is under judicial review, therefore, the reliance upon this judgment is misplaced.
A submission has been made by the Party-in-Person that where the Court is satisfied that an admission was made by inadvertence or erroneously and there was no mala fide on the part of the applicant, it would be a denial of justice not to permit the party to rectify such admission, or correct the mistake. The Party-in-Person has made this submission on the basis of a xerox copy of a commentary on the Code of Civil Procedure, though the name of the book could not be disclosed by the Party-in-Person to the Court. Having perused the commentary, it is seen that the note relied upon by the Party-in-Person is based upon the judgment in Hundari Bewa v. Keluni Dei and others reported in AIR 1984 Orissa 37.
A perusal of this judgment makes it clear that it pertains to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein the High Court of Orissa has held that the amendment of written statement seeking withdrawal of admission of fact made by inadvertence or erroneously in ignorance of true facts should be allowed. This principle of law would not be applicable in the present case which does not pertain to amendments in a written statement. The Party-in-Person has taken a categorical stand that he has not made the statements as recorded in order dated 01.12.2010, of this Court. In the face of the stand taken by the Party-in-Person, it cannot be understood what is the `inadvertence' or "ignorance of true facts" that he is now taking shelter of.
As has already been stated hereinabove, Special Civil Application No.2056 of 2007 has been finally disposed of by judgment dated 14.10.2011. The application having been filed before the final decision of the petition, has become infructuous. In addition, the order dated 01.12.2010, being an interlocutory order, would have no separate existence after the decision of the main petition and would merge in the final judgment.
For the aforestated reasons, the prayers made in the application do not warrant acceptance. The application is devoid of merits and is, therefore, rejected.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) (sunil) Top