Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7838 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shyam Babu Kesarwani Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Udayan Nandan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pramod Kumar Singh,Pt. Sita Ram Vishwakarma
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Civil Misc. Withdrawal Application no. 4 of 2018 dated 9.5.2018 is taken up.
Heard Sri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for petitioner and Pt. Sita Ram Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the respondents no. 4 and 5 on the application.
The petitioner in the writ petition is challenging the order dated 19.2.2018 passed by the President, Nagar Panchayat, Kaushambi-respondent no. 4 by which the services of the petitioner as Clerk, Town area Committee were terminated.
The matter was argued by the counsel at length and thereafter the Court reserved judgement. However, before the judgment could be delivered, the respondents recalled the impugned order dated 19.2.2018 vide its order dated 7.5.2018.
The learned counsel for the petitioner then filed this withdrawal application praying that since the order impugned in the writ petition had itself been withdrawn no further cause of action remained to the petitioner, therefore, he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition.
On this application Pt. Sita Ram Vishwakarma sought time to file his objection. An application supported by objection on affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 5 praying that the respondent no. 4 be punished for wilfully and deliberately flouting the proceedings which is subjudice before the High Court after the judgement was reserved and to proceed in contempt against the respondent no. 4 as well as against the petitioner.
This Court fails to see as to how the Court can restrain the petitioner from withdrawing his writ petition if he does not want to contest the same after the impugned order was recalled.
Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgement of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2001 (3) AWC 2008 Satguru Sharnanand Vs. Shiv Kailash Pandey. That was a case in which the Court took a serious view of the matter, when the judgement was heard and dictated by the Judicial Officer, an attempt was made to transfer the case from his Court. In the present case nothing of this kind has happened, therefore, the judgement in Satguru Sharnanand (Supra) has absolutely no application to the facts of the present case.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 also submitted that the order dated 7.5.2018 has been challenged by the respondent no.5 before the High Court in Writ petition no. 15011 of 2018.
Sri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this court the order dated 24.7.2018 whereby the said writ petition no. 15011 of 2018 was withdrawn by the Nagar Panchayat, Manjhanpur with liberty to approach the appropriate forum on a request made by Sri Pt. Sita Ram Vishwakarma, the counsel for the petitioner in that writ petition. This fact should have been disclosed by Pt. Sita Ram Vishwakarma at the outset instead of vehemently opposing the withdrawal application of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show as to how the Court can decline the prayer of the petitioner to withdraw his petition and how the Court can compel a petitioner to maintain his writ petition and contest it.
The allegation made in para 23 of the objection on affidavit also needs to be reproduced here and reads as under :-
"23. That, it is pertinent to mention here that the present Chairman respondent No.4 has passed recalling order dated 07.05.2018 with collusion of petitioner after knowingly that writ petition No. 7838 of 2018 is about to dismiss by this Hon'ble Court. Hence, the respondent no.4 has committed offence U/s 48 of Nagar Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1916."
It is indeed shocking as to how the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Manjhanpur, Kaushambi, Ankita Patel could make a statement that the Court was going to "dismiss" the writ petition. Judgment in the writ petition was reserved. How could the Executive Officer comment whether the petition which was still subjudice, would be dismissed or allowed or disposed of, This is a mischievous and motivated comment for which the Executive Officer would be liable for criminal contempt.
For reasons aforesaid, the objections of the respondent no. 5 are rejected.
The withdrawal application is allowed. The writ petition is
dismissed as withdrawn.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
However, considering the sheer abuse of process of Court by the respondent no. 5, Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Manjhanpur, Kaushambi in filing a frivolous and mischievous objection and wasting the time of the Court, this Court imposes a personal cost of Rs. 50,000/- against Executive Officer, Ankita Patel who has sworn the objection affidavit dated 23.5.2018.
The amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be deposited by Ankita Patel with the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court within one month from today. If the same is not so deposited the Registrar General shall take steps for recovery of the same from the Respondent no.5 in accordance with law. The amount so deposited shall then be transmitted to the High Court Legal Aid Services.
Let a copy of this order be placed before the Registrar General of this court for information.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Vandana