Back
Recalls Order, Imposes ₹50,000 Cost for by Advocate
The recently took a strong stance against the , recalling its own order and imposing costs on litigants for misleading the court. The bench of Justice Siddharth Nandan found that an advocate had actively concealed material facts, interfering with the administration of justice.
The Dispute and the Review
The case revolves around the management of Nehru Vidyapeeth Intermediate College in Ghazipur. On , the court had directed the District Inspector of Schools to conduct elections using an electoral list from 2009, after both sides represented that the 2009 elections were undisputed. However, Shiv Shankar Singh, who claimed to be the elected manager of the institution, filed a alleging that he never authorized any counsel to appear for him and that his signature on the was forged.
vs.
The court meticulously examined the conduct of both advocates involved. It found that , counsel for the petitioner, had suppressed crucial facts. The record showed that the Joint Director of Education had, by order dated , declared the 2009 elections doubtful and directed fresh elections. The challenging that order had been dismissed as infructuous, making the finding final. Additionally, the then District Inspector of Schools, Smt. Malti Rai, had explicitly denied conducting any such elections in 2009.
The court held that S.C. Dwivedi, who had represented the petitioner over a period, could not plead ignorance of these materials. It drew a clear distinction:
"There is a distinction between and mere inadvertence or wrong interpretation of the factual or the legal position. Once the petitioner has approached this Court, he is expected to disclose all relevant facts and material which may constitute a bundle of fact giving rise to a ."
The court further clarified:
"The
of fact means a truth is sought to be hidden on purpose to mislead the court; but however
means you share false information by mistake because you do not know the real truth."
Applying this, the court concluded that S.C. Dwivedi was guilty of , which amounted to .
The Forgery Allegation
On the claim of forged , the court referred the disputed documents to the . The FSL report revealed that even the admitted signatures of Shiv Shankar Singh from previous proceedings did not match his sample signatures. Thus, the assertion that he did not sign the was not established. The court noted:
"...the was filed only to recall an order which may not be suiting the applicants in the and in the process an Advocate who was representing the client for the last more than a decade has been put in the spot."
Regarding the other counsel, , the court accepted his for procedural lapses in his office, but held that his conduct did not constitute as he was a respondent counsel who merely accepted the petitioner's suggestion.
Cost Imposed and Rules Recommended
Declining to refer the matter to the or initiate , the court imposed a cost of ₹50,000 each on the petitioner (Awadhesh Rai) and the review applicant (Shiv Shankar Singh) for . It directed that the amount be deposited with the within one month, failing which the Registrar General would initiate .
The court also observed a lacuna in the : allows a to be lodged without a supporting affidavit, exposing advocates to vulnerability. It directed that a copy of the order be placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side to consider amending the rule to require an affidavit.
Decision
The court reviewed and recalled its earlier order dated , and directed that the be placed before the appropriate bench for fresh adjudication. The was disposed of with the above observations and directions.
The judgment underscores the high duty of advocates as officers of the court and sends a strong message against and .
