AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nisar Ahmad Kakru, C.J.—Four public interest litigation petitions (PI Ls), including the ones originating from two applications were adjourned to a definite date that is today, to the convenience of a non-resident learned Senior Advocate, Shri Rekesh Dwivedi. All these writ petitions are listed in the regular cause list under the heading "Hearing". On coming up of these petitions for hearing, some of the learned Senior Advocates appearing for the parties asked for copies of the report of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which is filed in compliance with the orders of this Bench dated 11-7-2011 (in W.P. No. 29358 of 2010) and 12-7-2011 (in W.P. Nos. 794, 6604 and 6979 of 2011), wherein we have indicated that the preliminary enquiry ordered by us is only for our own aid and assistance and fact of the matter is that we have not as yet opened the sealed covers containing the report of the CBI filed on 26-7-2011 with a view to hear the learned Senior Counsel in the light of the material forming part of the writ petitions, uninfluenced by the report, therefore, we find no requirement to furnish the copies of the report to the learned Senior Counsel.
Faced with the observation, some of the learned Senior Counsel sought time to file the counters. Whether there is any justifiability for such submission, apposite it is to refer to the orders passed in these writ petitions from time to time, one being dated 25-2-2011 (in W.P. No. 29358 of 2010) directing listing of the writ petitions for final hearing on 14.3.2011 with liberty to the Respondents to file the counter, apparently in the meantime. Order dated 20-4-2011 passed in the same direction (in review) would reveal further that while noticing failure of the Respondents to file the counters despite reasonable opportunity, the Bench directed listing of the writ petitions on 25-4-2011 for final disposal. Amazingly on the last occasion also a similar request was advanced by Shri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel which was found unsustainable on the basis of the proceedings recorded in the case with an observation that it was a delay dallying endeavour. Although the request was held liable to be rejected, yet we granted him two more weeks to file additional pleadings which period too is over still a request. Significantly, no other learned Senior Counsel had made request for filing counters at that point of time.
Regarding W.P. No. 794 of 2011, it is pertinent to refer to order dated 25-3-2011 passed in the said writ petition directing listing of the matter finally on 7-4-2011 for counters and hearing. In response thereto, one of the appearing learned Senior Counsels had refused to file counter on the strength of Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India, because according to him it would amount to disclosure of defence of the Respondent. The order reveals further that the appearing learned Senior Counsel had inter alia undertaken to argue the matter on its merits.
On 25-4-2011 when these matters were listed for hearing, on the request of the learned Senior Counsel to enable them to complete the pleadings, we had adjourned the matters beyond vacation. Thereafter, the matters appeared for hearing on 11-7-2011. Again a request to file counter was made by one of the learned Senior Counsel whereupon, we passed orders dated 11-7-2011 and 12-7-2011, while directing the CBI to file the report of the preliminary enquiry within two weeks before the Registrar (Judicial), a direction was specifically passed for listing of the writ petitions. It goes without saying that the listing is ''for hearing'' only as is evident from the fact that our order is in continuation to earlier orders which directed posting of the petitions for hearing and final disposal and there is no ambiguity to that effect in view of listing of the petitions under the heading ''for hearing''. In spite of the aforementioned factual narration discernible from the proceedings recorded and orders passed, all the appearing learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents seek listing of the matter on Monday - 1-8-2011 with liberty to file counters in the meantime. Be posted on 1-8-2011 for final hearing with liberty aforementioned.
As mentioned above, the report filed by the CBI has not been opened as yet, therefore we could not be alive to the request of the CBI for enlargement of time for completion of the enquiry to which aspect our attention is drawn by the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI, Sri P. Kesava Rao. We are not averse to the request so made because of adjournment granted for hearing of the petitions. Time is accordingly extended till 1-8-2011. It would be appreciated if no further extension is sought.