ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition noticing certain peculiar facts regarding the identity of the petitioner - Anil Kumar son of Dharam Pal and non-existence of the petitioner - Bajinder Singh son of Raje Ram in the previous petition i.e. CWP-(PIL)-131-2020, this Court vide order dtd. 12/3/2021 required the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce the petitioners, for he happened to be the counsel in both these petitions:-

(2.) While going through the petition, it is observed that earlier a petition (CWP-PIL No. 131 of 2020), based upon the same cause of action and against the same set of respondents was filed by Bajinder Singh son of Raje Ram. But, for the learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, had submitted that since the legal notice served on behalf of the petitioner was pending consideration and a decision thereupon would be reached soon, the same was disposed of vide order dtd. 30/9/2020. Whereafter, the Authorities upon consideration of the claim/grievance of the petitioner, vide order dtd. 10/11/2020 (ibid), concluded for the allegations leveled by the petitioner were wholly baseless, the legal notice they were served with, was filed. Thus, this petition.

(3.) However, what we are really intrigued by: the earlier petition (CWP-PIL No. 131 of 2020) was filed by Bajinder Singh son of Raje Ram, whereas the petition at hands has been instituted by Anil Kumar son of Dharam Pal. Not just that, in paragraphs 6 and 12 of the petition, the petitioner (Anil Kumar) claims that he had served the authorities with the legal notice dtd. 2/7/2020 (Annexure P-2) and whereafter he filed the CWP-PIL No. 131 of 2020. Whereas a copy of the legal notice (ibid), as also the order passed by this Court dtd. 30/9/2020 (Annexure P-9) reveal that it was Bajinder Singh, whose cause was being espoused and he alone was the petitioner in the earlier writ petition. Further, the order under challenge dtd. 10/11/2020 shows that before taking any decision, the authorities deemed necessary to even afford a hearing to the petitioner (Bajinder Singh). Accordingly, vide office letter dtd. 12/10/2020, the petitioner was sought to be informed and asked to appear before the designated authority on 14/10/2020. However, Shri Nitin Kumar, Junior Engineer, who was required to deliver the letter (ibid) at his residential address, reported that address of the petitioner (Bajinder Singh) was wrong and not traceable. Whereafter, even his Advocate was contacted to verify his residential address. But neither his address nor telephone number was available with the Advocate concerned. The Authorities then made yet another attempt to serve him vide registered letter dtd. 12/1/2020, but that too was received back with the remarks "Bagair gali mohalle ke pata nahi lagta hai". Whereupon, learned counsel for the petitioner was heard and after examining the matter on-merits, the authorities rejected the claim of the petitioner.