GAJRAJ JAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order dated 16th August, 2002 on C.W.J.C. No. 6438 of 2002, Gajraj Jain and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors.

(2.) It would be best to produce the last submission in the case at the very out set. The last submission was that regard being had to the circumstances that the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bihar, Patna has given a decision dated 22 July, 2002, a part of which was in favour of the petitioner appellants, the learned Judge should not have interfered with the matter and not decided the matter either.

(3.) The plain question is that the obligation to bring the order of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble Judge was upon the petitioner who invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. When the petition was filed, a proceeding before the Debt Recovery Tribunal as Central Bank of India, Katihar Branch, Katihar v. M/s. Katihar Flour Mills (P) Ltd. and 16 Ors., O.A. No. 2 of 2001, was pending. The Hon'ble Judge has recorded more than once that there has been material suppression of facts on behalf of the petitioners. The Hon'ble Judge also records that as on the day of the order a suit before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bihar, Patna being O.A. Case No. 2 of 2001 is pending. Nowhere in the writ petition or in an affidavit filed subsequently before the Hon'ble Judge the fact was brought to the notice of the Court that the Tribunal had decided the matter by an order dated 22 July, 2002. In the circumstances, there was no obligation upon the Hon'ble Judge not to have decided the writ petitioner when the petitioners chose to contest the matter and submitted on merits. The Hon'ble Judge declined to grant reliefs sought in the writ petition.