Back
2004 Supreme(All) 2426
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.B. MISRA, J.
Gaya Prasad Chaudhary - Appellant
Versus
Director Of Education (Madhyamik) And Others - Respondents
C.M.W.P No. 1961 of 2000
Decided On : 29-01-2004
For the Appellant : A.K. Gupta and R.K. Srivastava.
For the Respondent: Prakash Padia, S. Sharma, S.C., Sandeep Mukherjee, S.C. and S.C.
The importance of complete pleadings and evidence, the duty of the lawyer to assist the court, and the power of the arbitrator to grant interim relief.
Headnote:
Locus Standi - Writ Petition - Sections 8, 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court discussed the importance of proper pleadings and evidence, the duty of the lawyer to assist the court, and the power of the arbitrator to grant interim relief. It also highlighted the departure from the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and the necessity of serving the respondent for interim measures.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to decide representations, but failed to demonstrate locus standi. The court cited previous cases and settled propositions of law to emphasize the importance of complete pleadings and evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to establish locus standi and did not present a complete case, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Issues: Locus standi, completeness of pleadings and evidence, duty of the lawyer to assist the court, power of the arbitrator to grant interim relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of proper pleadings and evidence, the duty of the lawyer to assist the court, and the power of the arbitrator to grant interim relief.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed due to the petitioner's failure to establish locus standi and present a complete case.
R.B. Misra, J.
Heard Sri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the Committee of Management respondent No. 4 and Sri S. Sharma/Sri Sandeep Mukherjee, learned standing counsel for the State.
2. According to the petitioner he is live member of the society/ institution and has prayed for writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to decide the petitioner's representations dated 17.9.1998 and 20.12.1999 (Annexures-3 and 4 to the writ petition). The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate what is the locus standi for getting decision on the representations therefore, the writ petition cannot be adjudicated upon. In similar writ petition this Court on 10.4.2002 in Writ Petition No. 31215 of 1998, Ram Kishore Das v. Director of Education (Secondary), U. P., Allahabad, while dismissing the writ petition has observed as below :
"I have perused the averments made in the writ petition in paragraph 2 whereof, it has been stated that the petitioner is founder Life Member of Ex-Manager of the Institution known as Shri Ram Janki Intermediate College, Girdharpur Kungai, district Siddhartnagar. He is neither a candidate for appointment on the post of Principal or teacher nor has been displaced due to the appointments made. Therefore, it cannot be said that he is an aggrieved person and hence he has no locus standi to file the writ petition. Therefore, the order dated 24.9.1998 is liable to be recalled.
The application for recalling the order dated 24.9.1998 is allowed.
The writ petition is dismissed in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances."
3. It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. [Vide Bharat Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1988) 4 SCC 534 ; M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (1998) 4 SCC 387 ; National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs. S. Raghunathan and Others, (1998) 7 SCC 66 ; Ram Narain Arora Vs. Asha Rani and Others, (1999) 1 SCC 141; Smt. Chitra Kumari etc. Vs. Union of India and Others, (2001) 3 SCC 208 ; and State of U.P. and Others Vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey and Others Etc., (2001) 4 SCC 78.
4. In M/s. Atul Castings Ltd. Vs. Bawa Gurvachan Singh, (2001) 5 SCC 133, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under ;
"The findings in the absence of necessary pleadings and supporting evidence cannot be sustained in law."
5. Similar view has been reiterated in Vithal N. Shetti and Anr. v. Prakash N. Rudrakar and Ors.(2003) 1 SCC 18.
6. In Re: Sanjiv Datta and Others, (1995) 3 SCC 619, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed as under :
"Some members of the profession have been adopting perceptibly casual approach to the practice of the profession as is evident from........ the filing of incomplete and inaccurate pleadings.............. they do not realise the seriousness of these acts and omissions. They not only amount to the contempt of the Court but do positive dis-service to the litigants and create embarrassing situation with Court leading to avoidable, unpleasantness and delay in disposal of matters. This augurs ill for the health of our judicial system."
7. In Thakur Sukhpal Singh Vs. Thakur Kalyan Singh, AIR 1963 SC 146, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in absence of proper assistance to the Court by the lawyer, there is no obligation on the part of the Court to decide the case, for the simple reason that unless lawyer satisfies the Court that there is some balance in his client's favour to alter the situation, the Court is not able to decide the case. It is not for the Court itself to decide the controversy. The Court observed as under :
".................He (counsel) cannot just raise objections in his memorandum of appeal and leave it to the appellate court to give its decision on those
