ROTARY CLUB BEGUSARAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are quite unfortuate and taken as a measure of the level to which the proceedings before this Court has gone down, they leave this Court indignant, disturbed and sorrowful. In both the civil review petition and the writ petition the common prayer was for the review of the judgment and order dated 27-6-2000* passed in CWJC No. 6694 of 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the main case'). The only difference was that while the civil review petition was filed on behalf of the party which was respondent No. 4 in the main case, the writ petition was filed by certain persons who were neither parties to the main case nor could they be said to have any concern with the issue (s) arising in the main case. The writ petition was clearly intended to be a prop for the civil review petition; it was filed quite irresponsibly and without giving any thought regarding its maintainability. But in the case of the writ petition better sense prevailed at an early stage and the counsel appearing for the petitioners in that case, realised the mistake in filing the writ petition without losing much time. Within moments of the commencement of the submissions on the writ petition (on 22-8-2000) learned counsel sat down stating that he wished to withdraw the petition and on the next date (25-8-2000) he filed a brief and simple petition seeking unqualified permission from the Court for withdrawal of the writ petition for withdrawal lies on the record of this case.

(2.) Unfortunately, that was not the case in the civil review petition which was sought to be pressed with vigour, paying no heed to the repeated words of caution and warnings by the Court, not only in observations made in course of hearing of the case but also formally recorded in the order, dated 25-8-2000. However, at the fag end of the hearing when the submission of all concerned in this matter had concluded, counsel representing the petitioner in the civil review petition got up in a rather uncertain manner and made an oral prayer for withdrawal of the review petition. The prayer for withdrawal alas came too late and after all the damage, that was being apprehended by the Court from the beginning, had been caused.

(3.) Having regard to the nature of the controversy and the manner in which this case has proceeded, it will be quite wrong to allow a simple withdrawal of the petitions under consideration and the Court deems it fit and proper to put on record its strong disapproval of the conduct of the petitioners, specially in the civil review petition. The Court also wishes to address itself to some of the allied issues arising from the proceedings in these two petitions. Hence, I proceed to write this order.