Lala Mangat Ram Mahavidyalaya vs State of U.P.

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and Sri. Vinay Bhushan for Respondent No. 2 and Sri. Waseequddin Ahmad for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Counsel for the Respondents that relief claimed by the Petitioner are not clear insofar as on perusal of the relief, it is not clear that as to what relief, the Petitioner sought in the instant writ petition, to which learned Counsel for the Petitioner did not satisfy the Court as to what reliefs has been sought by him.

On perusal of the reliefs claimed by the Petitioner, I find force in the submission of learned Counsel for the Respondents and as such, the writ petition was directed to be dismissed with liberty to file fresh petition but even then, learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued the matter and insisted the Court to pass an order after sympathy being provided the Petitioner.

It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. (Vide Bharat Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs. S. Raghunathan and Others, Ram Narain Arora Vs. Asha Rani and Others, Smt. Chitra Kumari etc. Vs. Union of India and Others, and State of U.P. and Others Vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey and Others Etc.,

In M/s. Atul Castings Ltd. v. Bawa Gurvachan 2001 SC 1684, the Hon''ble Court observed as under:

The findings in the absence of necessary pleadings and supporting evidence cannot be sustained in law.

Similar view has been reiterated in Vithal N. Shetti and Anr. v. Prakash N. Rudrakar and Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 18.

Petition has been filed in a casual and cavelliar manner without taking the proper pleading. Nor the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is able to answer any question put to him, nor he seeks time to prepare the case or file better particulars/material facts.

In Thakur Sukhpal Singh Vs. Thakur Kalyan Singh, Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that in absence of proper assistance to the court by the lawyer, there is no obligation on the part of the Court to decide the case, for the simple reason that unless lawyer satisfies the Court that there is some balance in his client''s favour to alter the situation, the Court is not able to decide the case. It is not for the Court itself to decide the controversy. The Court observed as under:

...He (counsel) cannot just raise objections in his memorandum of appeal and leave it to the appellate Court to give its decision on those points after going through the record and determining the correctness thereof. It is not for the appellate Court itself to find out what the points for determination can be and then proceed to give a decision on those points.

While deciding the said case, Hon''ble Apex Court placed reliance upon judgment of Privy Council in Mst. Fakrunisa and Ors. v. Moulvi Izarus Sadik and Ors. AIR 1921 PC 55 wherein it had been observed as under:

In every appeal it is incumbent upon the Appellants to show some reason why the judgment appealed from should be disturbed; there must be some balance in their favour when all the circumstances are considered to justify the alteration of the judgment that stands. Their Lordships are unable to find that this duty has been discharged.

In T.C. Mathai and Another Vs. The District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, Hon''ble Supreme Court observed:

The work in a Court of law is a serious and responsible function. The primary duty of a...Court is to administer...justice. Any lax or wayward approach, if adopted; towards the issues involved in the case, can cause serious consequences for the parties concerned... In the adversary system which is now being followed in India, both in civil and criminal litigation, it is very necessary that the Court gets proper assistance from both sides.

The Rajasthan High Court in Bhola Singh and etc. Vs. The Prescribed Authority, The Tehsildar and Others, held as under:

...the quality of the judgment depends upon the assistance rendered at the Bar. The Judge can not take the entire responsibility of laying down a correct law unilaterally without any assistance of the learned members of the Bar. The Judge cannot afford to retire from chamber and sit in the library and find out the case law on the issues involved in every case and what is the occasion to do anything in a case where the pleadings are so vague as the petition itself cannot be entertained.

In D.P. Chadha v. Triyugi Narain Mishra and Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 221 the Hon''ble Apex Court has observed as under:

...Mutual confidence in the discharge of duties and cordial relations between Bench and Bar smoothen the movement of the confidence reposed by the Court in the counsel appearing for any of the two sides. A counsel, being an officer of Court, shall apprise the Judge with the correct position of law whether for or against either party.

Recently, in the case of Smt. Poonam Vs. Sumit Tanwar, the Apex Court has held that in absence of proper assistance to Court by the lawyer, the Court may decline to entertain petition.

For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that this is the case, where I thought to impose cost of Rs. 10,000/- so as to determine in indulging the aforesaid activities again by the Petitioner in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), and Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 114.

The writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost of Rs. 10,000/- before the Registrar of this Court within a month, failing which, the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad shall recover the same from the Petitioner and after recovering the same, it shall be transmitted to the Registrar of this Court. The Registrar, on its turn, shall transmit the same in the account of Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.