MUKESH KUMAR VIJAY Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mukesh Kumar Vijay Son of Shri Madan Lal Vijay filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3493/1993 on 16.6.1993. That writ petition came up before a learned Single Judge on 12.7.1993 when respondent No. 2 was represented by a counsel and the respondent's counsel stated that the matter is fully covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Gautam Kapoor Vs. State of Rajasthan,1987 1 RLR 30. The learned counsel for the petitioner wanted time to go through the Full Bench judgment. Then the case was taken on 21.7.1993 and in view of the Full Bench judgment the learned counsel for the petitioner expressed his desire to withdraw the writ petition and on that date the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. While the first writ was still pending, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3681/1993 was filed by the same student and when the D.B. case was taken up on 30.7.1993 an objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner has concealed material fact from the Court inasmuch as he had filed on identical facts an earlier S.B. writ petition which has been dismissed in the light of the Full Bench judgment referred to above. Both the writ petitions are filed by the same counsel within a week of each other and when the second writ petition was filed it was the duty of the counsel to mention the filing of the earlier writ petition and he could have explained that in the earlier writ petition vires were not challenged and in this vires were being challenged. Instead of saying that no earlier writ petition was filed in this Court by the petitioner, note 1 was to the effect that no D.B. Civil Writ Petition was filed.

(2.) We are of the view that the petitioner through his counsel clearly tried to over-reach the Court. The first writ petition could be amended to challenge the vires and if another writ petition was to be filed, facts regarding filing of the first writ petition had to be mentioned in the writ petition. This is the minimum requirement which we expect from a counsel who filed the second writ petition. It would equally apply to a party.

(3.) Even on merits we find that the case is fully covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court referred to above.