AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. and R.N. Prasad, J.—The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
This letters patent appeal has been filed against the order of 25 November, 2002 on Civil Revision No. 47 of 2002 : State of Bihar and Ors. v. Rajendra Prasad Singh and Anr.. The review was being sought on an order dated 15 January, 2002.
The learned Judge has given certain findings based on the record, on the basis of which he was declined to review the order. These findings are very serious. The learned Judge observed that "all those notings were done and verified after the writ petition was filed......." "Even some notings were made during the pendency of the writ petition. Those modifications could have been brought to the notice of the Court while hearing the writ petition itself but that has not been done."
Who exactly was seeking the review of the order? The review was being sought by a Block Development Officer. Clearly, there was a collusion between some officials of the Government if the assertion is correct that salary for the period of 1992-97 was paid unauthorisedly. The payment was good payment while it was being delivered. The aspects that the payment of salary was irregular was not an aspect on the record of the writ petition. After the writ petition was filed the Government records were being tailored to suit a situation to manufacture a plea.
Clearly, if the contention is that the payment is unauthorised then the persons who made this unauthorised payment regardless of the authorities who were and regardless of the rank, a departmental proceeding should be taken out against them for serious action.
The contention of the learned Counsel on the letters patent appeal is that the payment has not been made. Regardless, whoever sanctioned this an action has to be taken against those persons. Clearly, there was a collusion if the contention on behalf of the Block Development Officer is correct.
Making notings and draftings to create a pleading during the pendency of the case and avoid giving the correct version before the High Court when the writ petition was pending itself is a bad. This leads to multiplicity of litigations and wasting of the Court''s time. The State of Bihar will deposit Rs. 5000/- (five thousand) as a special cost with the Bihar State Legal Services Authority.
Dismissed.