RSA No.3870 of 2003 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3870 of 2003 (O & M) Date of Decision: 07.04.2011 HSEB and others ……Appellants Versus M/s NMC Carbonic Industries Pvt. Ltd. …...Respondent Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. P. K. Singal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rishi Raj, Advocate for Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.749-C of 2010 and RSA No.3870 of 2003 Respondent has moved CM No.749-C of 2010 alleging that pursuant to settlement effected under one time settlement scheme announced by Uttar Haryana Bijali Vitran Nigam Ltd. (UHBVNL-successor of defendant-Haryana State Electricity Board), respondent has deposited the necessary amount with the appellants and, therefore, the appeal has been rendered infructuous. Reply to the said application filed today in Court by counsel for the appellants is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. In the said reply, it has been admitted that respondent has deposited requisite amount under one time settlement scheme and the appeal has been RSA No.3870 of 2003 (O & M) - 2 - rendered infructuous. Learned counsel for the parties also state that the appeal be disposed of as infructuous. Accordingly CM No.749-C of 2010 is allowed and RSA No.3870 of 2003 is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. Large number of adjournments were granted to the appellants for filing reply to CM No.749-C of 2010 or to seek instructions regarding the settlement. When counsel for appellants could not do so inspite of many opportunities including two last opportunities, on the preceding date of hearing, this Court was forced to direct Chief Engineer of UHBVNL to appear in person today in this Court. Accordingly, Mr. D. K. Maheshwari, Chief Engineer is present in person. When he was asked as to why application was not responded to or why necessary instructions regarding settlement were not given to the counsel, Mr. Maheshwari replied that he has joined UHBVNL recently and, therefore, he sought to pass the buck to his predecessor. However, when questioned as to when he joined, Mr. Maheshwari replied that he joined on 09.11.2010 i.e five months ago. However, even thereafter the necessary instructions were not given to the counsel for 15.11.2010 and 23.02.2011. Accordingly, the excuse put forward by Mr. Maheshwari is a lame excuse. It is, however, correct that even his predecessor did not do the needful. This has resulted in wastage of precious time of the Court when the case was listed on several dates of hearing for this purpose. In fact after the settlement had been effected, the RSA No.3870 of 2003 (O & M) - 3 - appellants suo motu should have informed the Court through their counsel for disposal of the appeal even without necessity of moving of the application by the respondent for this purpose, but the appellants did not do the needful even after notice of the application was issued to the appellants way back on 18.03.2010 for 13.05.2010. Accordingly, a copy of this order be sent to Chairman and Managing Director of UHBVNL to take necessary steps to avoid such lapses so as to save the precious time of the Court. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 07.04.2011 A.kaundal