1 CRI-APLN-12-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 12 OF 2010 IN CRI.PIL NO. 5 OF 2010 Arif Anjum Mohammed Shafi ..Applicant Vs. The Commissioner of Malegaon Municipal Corporation, Malegaon and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. Firoz A.Ansari Adv. for applicant Ms.Rutuja Ambekar Adv. for respondent no.1 Mrs.U.V.Kejariwal APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : JULY 15, 2010 P.C.: 1 This Criminal P.I.L. was filed on 12.3.2010. The Office raised several objections. Therefore, Mr.Ansari counsel for the petitioner gave following undertaking: “I undertake to file translated legible copy be filed within two weeks, undertake to serve the respondents ” 2 CRI-APLN-12-10 2 Admittedly, learned counsel for the petitioner has not removed office objections and not complied with the undertaking given by him. Though the objections are not removed since the Advocate had given an undertaking, as per the office practice, the matter was placed before the Court in due course as per the scheduled date allotted by C.M.I.S. programme on 25.3.2010. The counsel for the petitioner was not present on 25.3.2010. We therefore, adjourned the matter to 26.3.2010. Even on that day, counsel for the petitioner was not present. Counsel for the respondent no.1 was present on that day. We passed the following order: “1 The petitioner was not present on 25th March, 2010, hence, we adjourned the petition to 26th March, 2010. Today, again the petitioner is not present. 2 Learned counsel for respondent no.4-Corporation has made a serious grievance that the petitioner files petitions and does not remain present. He produced copy of order dated 16th October, 2010 passed in Criminal Public Interest Litigation No. 6 of 2009. In that petition, Malegaon Municipal Corporation was party. The petitioner remained present and 3 CRI-APLN-12-10 withdrew the petition. 3 In view of the fact that petitioner was not present on 25.3.2010 and today also he is not present, the petition is dismissed for default. ” 3 The petitioner has filed this application for restoration of Criminal P.I.L. No. 5 of 2010. It appears that there is 60 days delay in filing this application and for that prayer for condonation of delay is made. When this application was heard in the morning session, counsel for respondent 1 was not present. Therefore, we directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to ensure that the 1st respondent ’s counsel remains present. Accordingly, in the afternoon session, Ms. Ambekar, learned counsel for respondent 1 is present. Ordinarily in matters of restoration of petitions, this Court is very liberal. Even in cases of condonation of delay applications, the Courts are liberal and hence, we expressed that we would restore the petition. However, learned counsel for the 1st respondent took a serious exception to the statement made by the applicant in paragraph 3 of this application which is as under: “It appears that respondents have managed, at their instance said Cri. PIL had been moved before the Hon ’ble Court (Coram: Smt.Ranjana Desai and Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, JJ.) on 25th March, 2010 which adjourned on 26th March, 4 CRI-APLN-12-10 2010. ” 4 The language used in Criminal Application in aforesaid paragraph, is not very happy. Learned counsel for 1st respondent denied this allegation. However, in order to check whether there is any truth in this allegation, we called Shri. S.K.Bodhe, Assistant Registrar, Criminal Board Department, to our Court. We asked him whether there is any application on record filed by the 1st respondent to have this matter placed on board. He told us that there is no praecipe filed by the 1st respondent to have the Criminal P.I.L. placed before us. Undoubtedly, therefore, these are unwarranted comments made in the Criminal Application for restoration. 5 Admittedly, the petitioner ’s counsel did not remove office objections in time. Petitioner ’s counsel did not pray for extension of time to remove office objections. Petitioner ’s counsel did not remain present when the petition was on board. When we asked him as to why he did not remain present, he told us that Criminal PIL should have appeared before the Bench presided over by the Honourable the Chief Justice and therefore, he was under an impression that it would come before the First Court. We do not think that lawyers should act 5 CRI-APLN-12-10 according to their impressions. It is the duty of every lawyer to check the board of the Court and appear before the Court before whom the matter is placed. Obviously, learned counsel for the petitioner and his clerk did not check the board. 6 We are compelled to make above observations because of comments made by the petitioner about the 1st respondent to which, serious exception was taken by 1st respondent and in our opinion, rightly so. We have already noted that the restoration applications, in the interest of justice are generally liberally granted. Hence, purely in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned. We set aside our order dated 26th March, 2010 and restore the Criminal P.I.L. No.5 of 2010. 7 We hope and trust that the above observations would send a right signal. 8 Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]