JAI CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of three Civil Writ petitions, viz. C. W. P. No. 12 of 1967: Shri B. L. Budhiraja Vs. Union of India and another , C. W. P. No. 13 of 1967: Shri K. C. Chulian Vs. Union of India and another and C. W. P. No 14 of 1967: Shri Jai Chand Vs. Union of India and another , all of which were heard together. The petitions were originally filed in the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Chandigarh and were registered as C. W. 1564, C. W. 1566 and C. W. 1565 in that Court. Consequent upon the extension of jurisdiction of this Court to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh, all the three petitions were transferred to it and were registered as Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 12, 13 and 14 of 1967, respectively.

(2.) When the petitions were called out for hearing on 3rd July 1967, Mr. Sita Ram Advocate appeared for the respondents and stated that although the Lieutenant Governor Himachal Pradesh, Simla had been impleaded as respondent No. 2 in all the three petitions, no notice had actually been served on the said respondent and that it was only two days before that instructions were received by him from the Government to appear on its behalf. He also submitted that neither he nor his clients had in their possession any pipers pertaining to the three petitions except the copies of the petition and the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents in Civil Writ Petition No. 14 of 1967. An examination of the record however did not support the statement made by the learned counsel as the reply affidavits in all the three petitions had been filed by Shri M. C. Sharma, Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as far back as 15th March, 1966. Mr. Sharma who we understand, is still holding the same post, could not hive done this unless he hid in his possession the copies of the three petitions. The record also showed that the sane learned counsel had appeared for the respondents before us on 1st May, 1917 and it was at the joint request of the counsel for the parties that all the three cases were adjourned to 2nd June, 1967 with a direction that they be heard as item No. 1 on that day. On 2nd June, 1967, again a request was made for adjournment by the same learned counsel and the hearing of the petitions was once again adjourned by us to 3rd July, 1967. We, therefore, expressed our inability to accede to the counsel's request for further adjournment but since he expressed his utter helplessness and submitted that he had not been able to prepare the case we allowed him one more day in spite of strong opposition from the petitioners. When the petitions were taken up for hearing on the next day, we found that Mr Sita Ram had been re-placed by another counsel Mr. Prithvi Raj. This court is of course not concerned with the arrangements which the Government makes for its representation in cases brought against it, but we cannot help expressing our keen sense of disappointment at the indifference shown in the matter.

(3.) As Mr. Prithvi Raj, learned counsel for the respondents, also submitted that he had only an incomplete brief in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 12 and 13 of 1967 and the only complete brief with him was in respect of civil writ petition No 14 of 1487 and Mr. H. S. Gujral, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the facts in all the three petitions were identical, we asked the learned counsel for the petitioners to address us on facts and contentions in Civil Writ No. 14 of 1967 and to refer to the separate facts of the other cases at the end, if necessary.