SHEKHAR BHARGAVA Vs. INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an intra Court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent for expunging certain remarks made by the learned Single Judge against the appellant herein while disposing of the Writ Petition No. 942 of 2002.

(2.) FACTS and circumstances leading to the remarks are as under. One writ petition on behalf of and for Vijay Bajaj was filed on 24-6-2002. One Amarlal Wadhwani father in law of Vijay Bajaj duly signed the said petition. Amarlal Wadhwani had also sworn the affidavit in support of the writ petition and filed the Vakalatnama. In Para 5. 1 of the prescribed format, it was mentioned that as Vijay Bajaj had to go out of the station (Indore) all of a sudden and since the matter was urgent, hence it is being filed as mentioned above and no sooner Vijay Bajaj is available his affidavit and Vakalatnama would be filed. Writ Petition without any office objection was listed before the Court on 1-7-2002 and 5-7-2002 but on both dates could not reach the Board. Ultimately, on 10-7-2002, the Writ Petition was taken up for consideration for orders on admission and interim relief and after hearing the appellant, a designated Senior Advocate, learned Single Judge passed the following order :-

(3.) ON 31-7-2002, respondents in the writ petition filed the reply wherein an objection to the effect that the writ petition was not properly constituted was taken. It was contended that no Power of Attorney duly executed by Vijay Bajaj in favour of Amarlal Wadhwani, which authorized the later to swear an affidavit, execute the Vakalatnama and sign the writ petition, accompanied the writ petition. In view of this objection, on 7-8-2002, additional documents, including the Power of Attorney executed by Vijay Bajaj in favour of his father-in-law Amarlal Wadhwani was filed in the writ petition. On 12-8-2002 the learned Single Judge finally heard the writ petition and reserved it for order. On 16-8-2002 the order dismissing the writ petition was passed containing certain remarks in Paragraph No. 3 of the order against the appellant, which are as under :-