AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—A rejoinder to the show cause replies filed by Sri H.K. Jha and Mrs. Manjula Upadhyay has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. A separate Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No. 393 of 2010 has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner.
In the Interlocutory Application the petitioner has prayed for allowing him to make certain amendments in the original review application in order to introduce certain additional facts which, according to the petitioner, would confirm that he was duly authorized by the Chairman of the Mines Board to file this review application on behalf of the Board and that such authorization given by the Chairman was duly ratified by the Board at its meeting held on 08.11.2008.
As it appears from the review application, in the affidavit the deponent, who is the present petitioner, has claimed to have authority of the Chairman of the Mines Board to file the review application and the additional facts which is sought to be introduced by way of amendment, appears to be in consonance with the statements made in the affidavit. As such, the prayer for amendment is allowed.
Referring now to the purported authorization as claimed by the petitioner, the same has been vehemently opposed by the Respondent No. 1.
Sri Mahesh Tewari, learned Counsel representing Respondent No. 1, submits that the aforesaid plea of authorization, as taken by Sri Sanjay Upadhaya, the deponent of the affidavit in the review application, is totally misleading and false. Learned Counsel would want to explain that from perusal of the minutes of the Board Meeting (Annexure-9/B), it would transpire that it was attended only by three persons namely Khiru Mahto, Mahavir Sahu and Sanjay Upadhaya himself whereas the Board comprises of as many as five members including the Chairman. Furthermore, though the authorization as purportedly given by the Chairman on 11.10.2008 to Sri Sanjay Upadhaya was only to file L.P.A. Against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1887 of 2008, the ratification of such authorization could be made only in terms of the authorization as given and not beyond.
Learned Counsel adds further that even otherwise, the Board could be represented only by its Chairman and by any other person only upon the authorization of the Chairman and even if represented by any other person on the authorization of the Chairman, the Vakalatnama has to be filed by the Chairman himself and not by any member of the Board which the deponent of the affidavit of the review application Sri Sanjay Upadhaya would want to claim.
The controversy regarding the authorization given to Sri Sanjay Upadhaya to file the review application need not be gone into in depth. Admittedly, Sri Khiru Mahto is the Chairman of the Board and the letter of authorization was given to Sri Sanjay Upadhaya vide authorization letter dated 11.10.2008. Thus, even though not specifically for the purpose of filing this review application, Sri Sanjay Upadhaya does appear to have the authority to represent the Board in respect of the legal course of action to be taken on behalf of the Board against the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 1887 of 2008 by this Court.
However, the defect which cannot possibly be ignored is that no Vakalatnama has been filed by the Chairman of the Board. Rather, the Vakalatnama has been filed under the signature of Sri Sanjay Upadhaya that too, as a Member of the Board. In absence of any Vakalatnama having been filed by the Chairman of the Board, this review application could not have been therefore filed by Sri Sanjay Upadhaya, only as a Member of the Board.
Coming now to the show cause replies filed by the Sri H.K. Jha and Mrs. Manjula Upadhyay, Advocates in response to this Court''s order dated 21.01.2010, it appears that both the learned lawyers have taken a firm stand that they did have the authority on behalf of the Mines Board to represent the Board in the writ application. In support of such claim, a letter dated 12.06.2003 (Annexure-E/1) to the show cause replies, has been adverted to. On perusal of the letter, it appears that the same was issued under the signature of the Additional Collector-cum-Secretary, Mines Board, Hazaribagh by way of a notification which declares that Sri H.K. Jha, Advocate, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi has been appointed as lawyer for the Mines Board and along with him, Smt. Manjula Upadhaya, Advocate, Jharkhand High Court has also been appointed as a lawyer of the Mines Board to assist Sri Jha. The notification also declares that both the lawyers have been vested with powers to receive copies of the pleadings in the cases filed in the High Court against the respondent Board.
Sri P.R. Bhagat, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this letter is of no consequence in view of the fact that such authority of engaging both the learned Counsel as advocates for the Mines Board, has not been ratified by the Board and it is a unilateral act which has no binding upon the Board. Learned Counsel informs further that it is in fact one Mr. Swarup Chandra Jain, who has been appointed as Advocate to represent the Mines Board. Learned Counsel adds further that even otherwise, the authorization empowers the advocates Sri H.K. Jha and Mrs. Manjula Upadhyay only to receive documents pertaining to the litigations filed against the Mines Board and not to represent the Mines Board before the Court.
The above arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner appears to be misconceived.
The letter of authorization categorically indicates that both the lawyers have been engaged to represent the Mines Board in the cases before the Court together with power to receive the documents pertaining to the cases filed against the Board. Thus, the aforesaid letter did give adequate and ample authority to both the lawyers not only to receive documents in the cases filed against the Board but also to represent the Board before the Court in the concerned cases. Even if the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that such authority was given to the learned lawyers only for receiving documents, is considered, then also Sri H.K. Jha and Mrs. Manjula Upadhyay had the authority to receive the documents and after receiving the documents, to forward the same to the office of the Mines Board for necessary instructions.
From the facts admitted by the petitioner, as appearing in its rejoinder to the show cause replies of Sri H.K. Jha and Mrs. Manjula Upadhyay, it transpires that a letter dated 14.07.2008 issued by Sri H.K. Jha was received in the office of the Mines Board on 29.07.2008. The contents of the letter indicate that it was by way of a reminder to the earlier letter issued by Sri H.K. Jha to the Board, informing the Board about the filing of the writ application and the necessity to furnish the instructions to enable appropriate replies to be filed on behalf of the Board in the writ application. To a specific query, learned Counsel for the petitioner admits that after receiving the letter of Sri H.K. Jha, the officials of the Board did not take any prompt action either to give any instruction to Sri Jha or to any other counsel of the Board.
It also appears that a copy of the letter issued by the Additional Collector whereby Sri H.K. Jha and Mrs. Manjula Upadhyay have been appointed as Advocates to represent the Mines board, has been supplied to the Registry of this Court and on the basis of such letter, a copy of the writ application was served upon Sri Jha. It cannot therefore be disputed that Sri H.K. Jha and Mrs. Manjula Upadhyay did have the authority to represent the Board and to make submissions on behalf of the Board.
Coming now to the grounds advanced in the Civil Review application, it appears that the main ground on the basis of which the order passed in W.P. (S) 1997 of 2008 has been sought to be reviewed, is that the lawyers Sri H.K. Jha and Mrs. Manjula Upadhyay did not have authority to represent the Board. This ground, as already discussed above, is not correct. Rather, it is misconceived and misleading.
The issuance of the letter of appointment (Annexure-E/1) is not denied by the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that such appointment of Sri H.K. Jha and Mrs. Manjula Upadhyay as lawyers for the Board, was ever cancelled or that information of the appointment of any other lawyer in their place, was ever communicated to them. Thus, on the dates when the writ application was taken up for hearing, both Sri H.K. Jha and Mrs. Manjula Upadhyay, Advocates had the authority to appear for and represent the respondent Board.
In the above context, the show cause replies filed by Sri H.K. Jha and Mrs. Manjula Upadhyay are accepted.
The other ground taken in this Review Application is that no information was in fact received from Sri Jha regarding filing of this writ application against the Board. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that though Sri Jha in his show cause reply has claimed to have issued several letters but has not produced any postal receipt or A/D slip in support of his claim.
This contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is also not acceptable. Admittedly, the letter dated 14.07.2008 was received in the officer of the Mines Board conveying the information not only regarding the filing of the writ application but also indicating therein that the letter was by way of a reminder to the earlier letter issued by Sri Jha and demanding urgent response by way of instructions, for filing the necessary counter affidavit.
It may be noted that in their show cause replies filed on affidavit, both Sri H.K. Jha and Mrs. Manjula Upadhyay have categorically affirmed and declared that upon receipt of the copy of the writ application, they had promptly forwarded the same to the office of the Mines Board and in spite of repeated letters and reminders they did not receive any instructions prior to the date of passing the final order in the writ application. Merely because the aforesaid affirmation of Sri H.K. Jha and Mrs. Manjula Upadhyay is not supported by a postal receipt and A/D slips, this in itself would not render the statements of Sri H.K. Jha and Mrs. Manjula Upadhyay as false and incorrect. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner by reference to the extract of the register of letters received by the Mines Board, that the register would show that none of the letters, referred to by Sri Jha in his show cause reply, have actually been received in the office of the Mines Board, is also of no assistance to the petitioner in view of the admitted fact that at least one of such letters was received in the office of the Mines Board prior to the date of passing of the final order in the writ application.
In the light of the above facts and circumstances and the discussions made, I do not find any ground or reason to review the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1887 of 2008. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed.