Civil Writ Petition No.22785 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22785 of 2010 Date of decision: September 8, 2011 Tejram Balwal .....Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjay Joshi, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. This writ petition came up for hearing on 23.8.2011, when the following order was passed by the Court:- “The petitioner was tried by Summary Force Court with the allegation of having contracted second marriage during subsistence of his first marriage. The said trial was set aside being without jurisdiction with the directions to reinstate the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to report back for duty. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge this action. It is not understood as to what relief the petitioner is claiming through this writ petition. The petitioner can join back the duty as he is entitled to reinstatement and if he fails to do so, the consequence would follow. When asked to explain, the counsel for the petitioner prays for permission to withdraw this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn as Civil Writ Petition No.22785 of 2010 -2- prayed. When the Court had passed the order, Mr. Manchanada joins the issue with the Court and states that the petition should simply be dismissed as withdrawn without any other observation. When this is not accepted, the counsel prays for time to argue the case. On his request, adjourned to 02.09.2011 for arguments. At this stage, Mr. Manchanda says that if the Court has decided to dismiss the writ petition, it may do so just now. The outburst of the counsel is not justified. No intention of dismissing this writ petition is entertained as is stated by the counsel. The conduct is not appreciated. The case is adjourned to the date already fixed.” It was due to the stand of the counsel for the petitioner that the order dismissing the writ petition was not given effect to as the counsel expressed himself in an unreasonable manner. The case was adjourned to 2nd September, 2011. When no one appeared for the petitioner, in the interest of justice, the case was adjourned for today. Today also nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. Still, I have considered the prayer made in the writ petition without having regard to any consideration to the conduct of the counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was tried by Summary Force Court or having contracted second marriage during subsistence of his first marriage. He was granted relief suo moto by the respondents by setting aside the said proceedings. The petitioner was required to report back for duty, which action he has challenged through the Civil Writ Petition No.22785 of 2010 -3- present writ petition. What would be a cause for him to agitate once his punishment is being set aside and he is being called back to report? The petitioner perhaps is not interested in joining back. If that is the intention then no appropriate directions can be issued by writ Court for the petitioner to not to join back. The petitioner has to make a decision whether to join back or not and if he does not join back, the necessary consequences would follow. When this was explained to the counsel, he blew hot and cold and took different stands more than once while making submissions. Now he has chosen not to put in appearance. No case for interference is made out. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. September 08, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE