Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Case has been taken up in the revised list but Sri Ranjit Saxena, Counsel for the respondent-Power Corporation is not present. Sri Brij Lal Verma, who is not in the panel of the Power Corporation, states that he is holding brief of Sri Ranjit Saxena in this case. He states that the brief has been handed over to him by Sri Ranjit Saxena for arguing the present recall application.

2. At the outset, Court requested Sri Brij Lal Verma to address the Court whether he, as a private Counsel, can hold the brief of Special Counsel/Government Counsel on the panel of the Corporation or not. Sri Brij Lal Verma submitted that he can argue the matter since he has been directed to do so by Sri Ranjit Saxena.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that neither Sri Ranjit Saxena nor Sri Brij Lal Verma can file the recall application and argue the case for the following reasons:

(1) The writ petition was decided by judgment and order dated 31.1.2006 after hearing Counsel for both the parties. At the relevant time, Sri R.D. Khare had argued the matter on behalf of U.P. Power Corporation-respondent No. 2. Sri Ranjit Saxena had not been allotted this case by the U.P. Power Corporation at that time. The judgment having been delivered after hearing Counsel for the parties, Sri Ranjit Saxena cannot file recall application having been engaged subsequent to the decision in the writ petition.

(2) Recall application, if any, can be filed by only Sri R.D. Khare, who was Counsel for the Power Corporation at the time of hearing.In case, the writ petition is restored, Sri Ranjit Saxena may be allotted the case by U.P. Power Corporation but a decided case cannot be allotted to any Counsel subsequently after the judgment has been delivered.

(3) No Vakalantnama has been filed by Sri Ranjeet Saxena along with counter affidavit.

(4) The instant recall application was filed on 15.2.2006 by Sri Ranjit Saxena, inter alia, on the ground that the order dated 31.1.2006 is ex parte as it has been passed in absence of any counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. Counter affidavit has also been filed along with recall application with the prayer to recall the judgment and order dated 31.1.2006.

(5) It is averred in the recall application that the Chief Engineer, Hydel, U.P. Power Corporation, 14 Ashok Marg, Shakti Bhavan, Lucknow was not having any information about the orders dated 31.8.2005 and 22.12.2005.

4. It is also submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that notices on behalf of the Corporation had been received by Sri R.D. Khare, Counsel for the U.P. Power Corporation who is authorized to receive notices on behalf of the Corporation as such it cannot be said that respondents had no notice or information about the case or orders passed on the writ petition. The judgment dated 31.1.2006 is also not exparte as it has been passed after hearing Sri R.D. Khare Counsel for the respondents and case laws been decided on merit.

5. The averments in the recall application that that reason of not filing counter affidavit is that no information was received from Sri R.D. Khare, Advocate for filing the counter affidavit and in absence of receipt of any previous orders dated 31.8.2005 and 22.12.2005, which were communicated to the Chief Engineer, Hydel, U.P. Power Corporation, 14 Ashok Marg, Shakti Bhavan, Lucknow, is fallacious. It is entirely between the Corporation and its Counsel. Admittedly the Corporation has appointed Advocates on its panel to receive notices and represent them. Whether the Counsel sent the information to the Corporation or not is a matter not in controversy in this petition. It is sufficient that orders were passed after hearing the Counsel for the parties and judgment was given on merits.

6. It appears that on 31.5.2005, Advocates were on strike. However, when the matter was taken up, Counsel for the respondents was granted a month’s time and no more for filing counter affidavit. Order dated 31.8.2005 is as under :

"Hon’