Ved Parkash vs Union of India and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The case here provides yet another instance of the inept and casual manner in which matters in Court are handled on behalf of the Government. The suit here was filed by the Petitioner Ved Parkash, Defence Estate Officer, Patharkot on July 25, 1985 seeking an injunction against his transfer to Calcutta. On July 30, 1985, which was the first date fixed for hearing after the filing of the suit, the Government Pleader Mr. Kulbhushan Markan filed a Memorandum of Appearance and made a statement that he intended to appear in that matter on behalf of the Defendants. He sought an adjournment for filing a written statement and reply to the application for stay. This was allowed subject to the condition that status quo with regard to the transfer be maintained until the filing of the written statement and the reply to the stay application. The case was then adjourned to August 19, 1985 on which date the written statement and reply to the application for stay was filed and the case was adjourned for replication and arguments on the application for stay to September 4, 1985. The impugned order here is of this date, that is, September 4, 1985, when the case was ordered to be adjourned to September 21, 1985 to enable the Government Pleader to seek instructions to appear on behalf of the Defendants.

The short contention raised by Mr. M L. Sarin, counsel for the Petitioner was that as the Defendants had been served and no proper appearance had been put in on their behalf, the court should have proceeded against them ex-parte and not granted another adjournment to the Government Pleader to obtain necessary instruction for appearing on behalf of the Defendants.

Inefficiency on the part of the government officials concerned is undoubtedly a writ large and must indeed invite adverse comment, more so, when on account of the delay caused thereby an ad interim order came to be passed staying the order of transfer, when as is well known, such orders are stayed only rarely and that too for special reasons. Be that as it may, Mr. G.S. Chawla, appearing for the Union of India has now stated at the bar that Mr. Kulbhushan Markan has since been duly authorised to appear on behalf of the Respondents and he appeared before the trial court on September 21, 1985. In this situation, it would clearly not be in the interests of justice to direct the trial court to proceed ex parte against the Defendants, which was the relief sought in revision here.

This revision petition is accordingly hereby dismissed but in the circumstances, the Respondents shall pay the costs of this petition. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.

Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on November 18, 1985.