RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICATION for dispensing with preparation of paper -book is allowed.

(2.) THE writ petition No. 1011/1999 filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 14.5.1999 for want of prosecution because the learned Counsel for the petitioner was absent on 14.5.1999 when the matter was called out. The restoration application too has been dismissed vide order dated 24.3.2000 by holding that the explanation furnished by the application in respect of the previous order -sheet is not in consonance with the previous order -sheets and the writ petition was also dismissed on merit. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) IT is true that the facts given about the proceedings on 19.4.1999 is not in consonance with the proceedings recorded. However, very precisely it was the case of the appellant that the learned Counsel submitted that he appeared on that date and he submitted that some similar writ petitions are also pending then the Court directed the Counsel to give the number of the pending writ petitions and the matter had been adjourned for two weeks. But instead in the order -sheet it has been inadvertently recorded that 'None present. Put up after three weeks. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has said something deliberately contrary to record. He has merely tried to explain reasons for his absence recorded in the order sheet dated 19.4.1999. The learned Single Judge did not notice that the learned Counsel has not said that he was present on 19.4.1999 in the Court and it has been shown recorded in the Court order - sheet. His precise case was that he was present on 19.4.1999 but the order -sheet records him to be not present inadvertently.