BITTAN BAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In regular course of adjudicatory process the present writ petition would have been taken up for final hearing in view of the narrow compass of the controversy involved but the said exercise could not be undertaken as Mr. Khare, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 submitted that the copy of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents Nos.1 to 3, the State Government and its functionaries, has not been served on him and at that juncture Mr. A.S. Raizada, learned Government Advocate contended the copy of the return need not be given to the counsel for the respondent No.4 as it is not the mandate of Rule 11 (a) occurring in Chapter II Section 3 of M.P. High Court Rules and Orders. As such a stand was taken by the learned Government Advocate it was thought apposite to hear on the said issue and accordingly the learned counsel for the parties were permitted to putforth their contentions in this regard.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 contended that if the return filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 is not supplied to him it would be well nigh impossible on his part to address the Court on merits of the case in proper perspective and the concept of hearing in its conceptual essence be a casuality and a systemic malady will corrode the rights of the parties.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate laid emphasis on the Rule in question to buttress his contention that in absence of any requirement in the Rules the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not under any obligation to serve a copy of the counter-affidavit on the learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

(3.) To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to Rule 11 in entirety. It reads as under :-