Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 1177
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sheel Nagu and Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, JJ.
Girija Shankar Sharma v. State of M.P.
Writ Appeal No. 1135 of 2020 (G); Decided on 2.12.2020
Headnote:
Natural Justice -- appellant/counsel representing three petitioners before writ Court -- writ Court found that appellant/counsel did not disclose about earlier round of litigation and its fate -- petition drafted in wanner giving impression that dispute not attained finality -- writ Court came to conclusion that appellant/counsel intentionally suppressed this fact -- writ Court made observation in respect of conduct of appellant/counsel -- challenged -- writ court passed impugned stricture against appellant in his absence -- appellant deserved reasonable apportunity of explaining about suppression -- impugned observation deleted -- matter remanded of Single Judge for affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to appellant and passing suitable order. (2007) 3 SCC 587 and (2014) 5 SCC 417 followed. 2017 (2) MP2J 234, 2001 (I) MPWN 181 and 2008 AIR SCW 7630 referred to. [Paras 8, 9 & 11
uSlfxZd U;k; && fjV U;k;ky; d¢ le{k vihykFkÊ@dkmUlsy us rhu ;kphx.k dk çfrfufèkRo fd;k && fjV U;k;ky; us ik;k fd vihykFkÊ@dkmUlsy us eqdnesckth dk iwfoZd n©j rFkk mldk ifj.kke çdV ugÈ fd;k && ;kfpdk bl jhfr esa çk:fir fd ;g èkkj.kk cus fd fookn us vafrerk çkIr ugÈ dh && fjV U;k;ky; us fu"d"kZ fudkyk fd vihykFkÊ@dkmUlsy us lk'k; ;g rF; fNik;k && fjV U;k;ky; us vihykFkÊ@dkmUlsy d¢ vkpj.k d¢ lacaèk esa leqfä dh && vk{ksfir && fjV U;k;ky; us vihykFkÊ d¢ fo#) vk{ksfir vo{ksi mldh vuqifLFkfr esa ikfjr fd;k && vihykFkÊ fNiko d¢ ckjs esa Li"Vhdj.k nsus d¢ fy, ;qfä;qä volj dk ik= Fkk && vk{ksfir leqfä foy¨fir && vihykFkÊ d¨ ;qfä;qä lquokà dk volj çnku djus rFkk ;Fk¨fpr vkns'k ikfjr djus d¢ fy, ekeyk ,dy U;k;kèkh'k d¨ çfrçsf"krA ¼2007½ 3 ,l lh lh 587 rFkk ¼2014½ 5 ,l lh lh 417 vuqlfjrA 2017 ¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 234] 2001 ¼1½ e-ç- ohdyh u¨V~l 181 rFkk 2008 , vkb vkj ,l lh MCY;w 7630 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 8] 9 ,oa 11
ORDER
1. The instant intra-Court appeal u/S 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the final order dated 6.10.2020 [Reported in 2020 II MPWN 100] passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No.14864/2020, while excercising jurisdiction under Article 226 r/w 227 of the Constitution of India, dismissing the petition in question by imposing cost of Rs.20,000/- against the three petitioners therein and while doing so, the following observation was made in respect of conduct of the counsel representing the said three petitioners :-
“Although the conduct of Shri G.S. Sharma, Advocate falls within the parameters of Contempt of Court, but instead of initiating proceedings for Contempt of Court, this Court thinks it appropriate to issue a warning to Shri G.S. Sharma, Advocate, that he should not induldge in such dreadful tactics.”
Pertinently, Shri G.S. Sharma, Advocate is the appellant herein. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellant restricts the challenge herein to the aforesaid remark made by learned Single Judge against the counsel for petitioners, who is appellant herein.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant herein has raised the sole ground of denial of reasonable opportunity to the appellant herein to be heard by learned Single Judge before making the aforesaid observations which according to the learned counsel for the appellant visit the appellant with adverse civil consequences. It is submitted that when the impugned order was passed, appellant (counsel for petitioners therein) was not present and learned Single Judge finding appellant to be not present even in the second round made the aforesaid impugned observation which casts consequences of adverse nature upon the professional status of the appellant and may be deleterious to the furtherance of his professional prospects in the future. It is, thus, submitted by relying upon decisions Bijendra Singh Parihar v. State of M.P. & Another 2017 (2) MPLJ 615 (Para 7), Shyam Narayan Tripathi v. State of M.P., 2001 (I) MPWN 181 = 2001(1) MPWN 181 = 2001 (2) MPLJ 234 (Para 9), The Secretary Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh v. Raghuraj, 2008 AIR SCW 7630 (Para 34), that the said impugned observation be set-aside.
3. After hearing learned senior counsel for the appellant on admission, this Court as regards the imposition of cost is of the view that the intention of learned Single Judge while imposing cost of Rs. 20,000/- was to fasten the said burden of said cost upon three petitioners and not the cousnel for the petitioners i.e. appellant herein. Thus, this Court need not go into the aspect of challenge to imposition of cost since the petitioners are not before this Court in this appeal.
4. As regards the observation made by learned Single Judge against appellant, it is seen from the impugned order that the writ Court was of the view that despite the appellant herein, who was the counsel in earlier round of litigation which had resulted into dismissal not only of the petition but and of the writ appeal, knowing very well about the issue having been concluded by the Single Bench and as well as the Division Bench, filed the petition in question seeking the same relief on the same grounds and same set of facts. The writ Court further found that the appellant being counsel for the petitioners in the earlier round and as well as this round did not disclose about the earlier round of litigation & it's fate and drafted the petition in a manner giving an impression that the dispute has not attained finality by making a prayer of deciding the representation of the petitioners in terms of some earlier orders passed in the case of allegedly similarly situated persons.
5. By noticing the aforesaid, the writ Court came to the conclusion that the counsel despite having knowledge of the earlier round of litigation, intentionally supressed this fact thereby adversely reflecting upon the professional integrity. The act of
