@ HIGH GQSRT OF JUDECATURE CHHATTESGARH : 3!LASPUR DEVI390N BENCH CGRAM : HON’BLE $HR! SLR. NAYAK, £J. HON’BLE $E-iRl DR, DESHMUKH, J. Writ Petition gm} NG.1851 ea: 2094 Kanwar Pa! Singh, aged years, PETI’IGNER son of SM Raghunath Singh R/a Care: Shri Mahendra $ingh, M‘G —, 10, Sharda Vihar, Korba (C.G’) Versus Union of India Through The RE$PONQEN‘FS 1. Secretary, Ministry of Coa!, Gevemment of Sndia, $hastri Bhawan‘ New Deihi 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, North Biock, New Dekhi The Chairman, Coai India Limited, 10, Netaji Subhash Road, KOH<aia CW3} ‘i'he Chai..an cum Managing Directer, $euth Eastern Coameids Limited! Seepat Road. PO: SECL, BHaepm = 495 G05 (CG) 4. 5. The Directer Genera! of Resettbmenfz; Ministry of Defence West Biock — lV R.K. Puram New Deihi b} Present : Shri Kishore Bhaduri and Shri RN. Jha, learned counser for the petitioner. Thakur Viiay Singh, iearned Assisrant Soiicitor Generai with Shri SK. Beriwal, Standing Ceunsel fer Unicn of indiairespendents NM. ,2 and 5. Shri RS. Nair, learned Sr. Advacaie with Shri Anis Pandeyi iearned counsei for respondents No. 3 & 4. GRAL ORDER (Passed en 25E“ August, 2%6) The foiiewing orai Greer of the Cour: waspesseeii by $.R. Neyak, Ci. Thie writ petition is filed by one Kanwar Pal Singh S/o Snri Raghunath Singh, R/o Korba in the State of Chha‘nisgerh. This writ petition , is fited by him ciaiming to be a prc bono public character to espouse the pubiic interest. This Court having entertained the writ petition on 27-07- 2004 directed notice re-ruie to the respondegts. The writ petition wae initiatty presented by the petitioner through his counsei Shri Kishore Bhaduri, a teamed counsei of this Bar after executing Vakatatnama in hie favour. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner through another teamed couneei, namely, Shri RN, Jha, fiied LA. No. S327 of 2004 praying for withdtawei of the writ petition. The vety next day, the petitioner fiied an affidavit before this Court making aiiegations that he otid not engage the services of Shri Kishore Bhaduri and he did not execute the Vakaiatnama in his favour. When the above appiioation and affidavit were pieced before the Court for appropriate order on 11-01-2005, a submission was made by Shri Kishore Bhaduri that what is aiieged in the affidavit of the petitioner dated 0Z12-2004 is totaiiy false and incorrect. in the circumstance, the Court thought it apptopriate to hear the petitioner in person and acootdingiy, Shri RN. Jha, teamed counsel was directed to secure the presence of the petitioner on 24m January 2GO5. (2) Thereafterwards, the ease had undergone several adjournments as couid be seen from the order-sheet, but, the fact remains that Mrf RN. Jha was not in a position to secure the presence of the petitioner before this Court on any occasion. Even today, Shri Jha toid the Court that the petitioner never bothered to respond to his several communications including the registered ones. At the time of hearing, tie pointediy asked Shri Jha and Shri Bhaduri whether in the absence of the petitioner‘ they want to press this writ petition for decision-making, and both of them told‘us that they are not interested in, prosecuting this case. (3) We have perused the writ petition and the prayers of the petitioner. We are not satisfied that if the writ petition is not heard on merit and opinion is handed down, it would cause any public mischief or injustice. in that view of the matter, we have no good reason to undertake adjudication of this writ petitien, particuiariy, in the absence ef the petitioner and the refusa! of two of his counsei. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition. (4) Before we part with this case, the grievance made by Shri Kishore Bhaduri is required to be placed on record. As already pointed out, according to Shri Kishore Bhaduri, what has been alleged by the petitioner in his affidavit dated 07-12—2004 is totaiiy false and incorrect and that he presented the writ petitien' only atter the petitioner executed the Vakalatnama in his favour. Whether the version of the petitioner is correct or the version of Shri Kishore Bhaduri is correct, it is not for us to adjudicate upon in the present proceedings. Shri Kishore Bhaduri sought liberty to take appropriate iegai action against the petitioner who has made serious ailegations against him. in that View of the matter, white dismissing the writ petition with no order as to costs, we reserve iiberty to Shri Kishore Bhaduri to take appropriate iegai action against the petitioner in accordance with \Law, if he is so advised or wishes. - Sdl- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge \ * \