R.A. NOS.220 AND 248 OF 2009 IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8252 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: Devinder Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others ****** PRESENT: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr.Advocate with Ms. Deepika, Advocate (in RA No.248 of 2009) Mr. R. K. S. Brar, Advocate, for the applicant (in RA No.220 of 2009) Mr. N. D. S. Mann, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Review Application Nos.248 of 2009 and 220 of 2009. While imposing exemplary costs on the respondent- applicants, the Court has made a mention in detail to casual and non-caring attitude on the part of the respondents while filing reply in response to the notice issued in the writ petition. The role of each applicant and other respondent was noted in the order under review. The order was passed after serving due notice to all including the applicants. Applicant, Karan Avtar Singh was working as Secretary, PWD Department. Secretary PWD was impleaded as respondent No.3 in the writ petition. He was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for failing in his bounden responsibility to ensure that the correct and proper stand was taken on behalf of the State. If he had authorised anyone else to file reply on his behalf, then his responsibility would not end with this. Review Application No.220 of 2009 has been filed by Mr.Manpritam Singh, Sub Divisional Engineer, who was directed to R.A. NOS.220 AND 248 OF 2009 IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8252 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: pay costs of Rs.20,000/- for the lapses on his part. Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, learned senior counsel, would contend that Sh.Kulbir Singh was working as Secretary, Department of Public works, and had taken charge on 25.7.2008. He only had appeared in person before the Court to state that the record had been traced out from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur and requested for time to get the record translated to place the same before the Court. The counsel accordingly would contend that Karan Avtar Singh, who was serving as Secretary of the Department earlier could not be held responsible for the stand that was pursued before the Court. The counsel accordingly pleads that applicant Karan Avtar Singh could not be fastened with the liability for this approach. He prays for review of the order dated 16.4.2009 vide which the said applicant was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as costs and also for review of the directions for reflecting the entry in his confidential report. It is true that Sh.Kulbir Singh was the Secretary who had appeared before the Court and had made statement about record being available as is highlighted by the counsel. This alone would not be enough to absolve the applicant entirely. This writ petition was filed on 23.5.2007. Notice of motion was issued on 16.7.2007. Reply on behalf of the State was filed on 26.11.2007, where this stand was taken that the land was acquired twice but the record is not forthcoming. It was also averred in the reply that the land was acquired through a notification No.775-BR-IV-62/6602 of the Punjab Government. This was a reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to R.A. NOS.220 AND 248 OF 2009 IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8252 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: 5, i.e. on behalf of the applicant. This stand continued to be projected till 25.7.2008, when Sh.Kulbir Singh took over as Secretary. While holding the applicant responsible and directing him to pay exemplary costs, it was observed as under:- “There will not be much need to discuss the role and responsibility of respondent Nos.3 to 5, who have filed reply and were responsible to bring the true facts before this Court. They are found wanting and have certainly been too careless in their attitude. They are officers, having considerable length of services and can be expected to realise the sanctity of court's proceedings. Their act is such which would have led to injustice being perpetuated. The anguish of the Court comes out clear from the detailed order and the reasons recorded on 19.11.2008. The then Executive Engineer, Mr.Satish Grover had filed joint reply on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5. He is candid enough to admit his fault. It may be said to his credit that he has not made any effort to pass on the blame to his juniors but that can not be a reason to excuse him of his lapse. Respondent No.3, the then Secretary, Mr.Karn Avtar Singh, a senior IAS officer need not to be reminded of his responsibility to bring true averments in the reply before this Court. He has not bothered to see that correct facts are brought before the court and has failed in his duties at his own peril. He did not realise the seriousness of the issue, even when he R.A. NOS.220 AND 248 OF 2009 IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8252 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: was summoned to appear before the Court. He continued to stick to the false stand without application of mind and without himself checking the record. If he had been vigilant enough to perform his responsibility well, the situation could have been saved at his level. Innocent citizens would have been saved of this agony. It would have saved the time of this Court as well. See the men hours wasted in this uncalled for litigation. He apparently has, thus, failed in his duties as Secretary expected from him. He and respondent No.5, both are clearly blame worthy for the false stand which is taken before the Court.” The observations made in the above-noted para that he had appeared before the Court and had continued to stick to the stand may not relate to him but since the main reply taking false stand was filed, when the applicant was the Secretary, he can not escape the responsibility of ensuring that a proper reply is filed before the Court. Even at the time of passing of this order, the State had made an attempt to favour the applicant by stating that the applicant was not responsible as the file pertaining to the case was never dealt with by him. It was also stated that sanction to defend the case was issued at the level of Additional Secretary, PWD B&R. The applicant, being a senior officer, need not be apprised of his role as a Secretary. Once he was impleaded as such, it was his responsibility to ensure that a correct and true reply is filed before the Court. Any wrong reply would certainly have led to injustice. Merely because the R.A. NOS.220 AND 248 OF 2009 IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8252 OF 2007 :{ 5 }: file was not dealt with by him, would rather aggravate his fault then mitigating it in any manner. He ought to have realised that his department was expected to file reply before this court, where he was impleaded as a party. If he had authorised any person to take a stand on his behalf, then responsibility will be his and of none else. If any internal arrangement has been made in the Department that will not be the concern of this Court. Accordingly, no reasons are made out for review the order directing him to pay an exemplary costs in this case. However, considering the fact that the applicant was at the helm of affairs when initial stand was taken but subsequently another officer took over from him, who, persisted with wrong stand, it can be said that he did not get opportunity to rectify the situation. His prayer that order of reflecting the entry in his confidential record in this regard may be a bit harsh, thus, appears justified. The counsel appearing in review application No.220 of 2009 submits that applicant is a young officer and had remained at the seat for a short duration. His role is found reflected in the order under review. He was the one who had issued the impugned notice dated 14.5.2007, which had led to this situation. He would have no reason to advance for review of the order. He had performed his duties with total non-application of mind. There is, thus, no reason made out for reviewing the direction for him to pay costs of Rs.20,000/-. In fact, there would be hardly any reason to review any other part of the order. This applicant had issued notice without perusing the demarcation alleged to have been given by the revenue authority, which was ultimately not found available in the record. He R.A. NOS.220 AND 248 OF 2009 IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8252 OF 2007 :{ 6 }: certainly was found wanting in performing his duties and as such, has rightly been fastened with the costs etc. As a result, no case for reviewing the directions is made out. The direction to reflect the entries in the annual confidential report of Karan Avtar Singh is, however, withdrawn. Such direction, so far as applicant Mr.Manpritam Singh is concerned would remain. The review Application No.248 of 2009 filed by Karan Avtar Singh is disposed of with the above direction, whereas the review application No.220 of 2009 filed by Mr.Manpritam Singh is dismissed. February 10, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE