DEALER SELECTION BOARD Vs. BINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 8.8.2000 passed in CWJC No. 9951 of 1999 by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which he has rejected the review application filed by the appellant -Dealer Selection Board for recall of the order dated 12.5.2000 whereby the appellant as well as respondent No.4, who was also respondent No.4 in the writ application, were directed to pay quantified cost of Rs. 10,000/ - each to the learned counsel for the writ pettioner -respondent No. 1 and they were also directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/ - each in the name of Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority and has further saddled the appellant with a cost of Rs. 15,000A to be deposited with the Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority.

(2.) THIS matter arises in the following circumstances. An advertisement was issued for allotment of LPG distributorship under the defence category. Respondent No.1 Binod Kumar and respondent No.4 Rajiv Kumar were the claimants and the distributorship was allotted to respondent No. 4 Rajiv Kumar which has been challenged by respondent No. 1 in the writ application. After the argument was advanced on behalf of respondent No. 1, the argument began on behalf of the appellant During course of argument, the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 handed over one circular to the learned counsel for the appellant who wanted to produce the said document before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge having noticed that this document was filed in the midst of the argument after the learned counsel for respondent No.1 had finished the argument, took a serious view of the matter and directed the appellant to deposit the quantified cost as stated above and further directed that unless the cos4 t /1is /20 1 paid, 3 Pa gt ehe 112document shall not be taken into consideration. Thereafter the appellant filed an application for modification of the order which has been rejected by the learned Single Judge with a further cost of Rs. 15,000/ -. Equivalent Citation:2001 -PLJR -1 -226

(3.) THE learned counsel for respondent No.1 admitted the fact that no time was sought for by Mr. K. D. Chatterjee for bringing the aforesaid document on record and only that document was referred to by him.