Court No. - 27 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 4035 of 2010 Petitioner :- Nar Mahadur Shashi (At : 2.P.M.) Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Colletor Lucknow And Others Petitioner Counsel :- J.N.Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,K.S.Pawar Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.
Hon’ble Yogesh Chandra Gupta,J.
Heard Sri R.S.Pande, Advocate representing Sri J.N.Mishra. We have also
heard Sri N.B.Shahi, petitioner who appears in person.
An affidavit has been filed by Sri J.N.Mishra, tendering unconditional
apology.
By the order dated 8.7.2010, notice was issued to petitioner Nar Bahadur
Shahi as to why he may not be tried and punished for committing ex-facie
contempt on account of filing of false affidavit and concealment of fact. In
response Sri Nar Bahadur Shahi has filed affidavit tendering apology. The
affidavit is being taken on record. He also tenders oral apology.
Writ petition No. 3541 (M/B) of 2008 was filed by the petitioner in which
Shri J.N.Mishra, Advocate was the counsel. The said petition was disposed of
by the order dated 5.11.2008 permitting the petitioner to pay the entire dues in
five equal quarterly instalments and first instalment was to pay in the month
of June, 2009. In fact the petitioner did not pay the dues in terms of the order
dated 5.11.2008 and committed default. He filed another Writ petition No.
3507 (M/B) of 2009 which was dismissed by order dated 15.4.2009 on the
ground that for the same cause of action another writ petition was not
maintainable. While dismissing the writ petition, this Court had
sympathetically permitted the petitioner to pay the dues pursuant to demand
letter dated 12.1.2009. As the petitioner did not comply with the order dated
15.4.2009 passed in writ petition No. 3507 (M/B) of 2009, the recovery
proceeding was carried on against him.
Subject to above back drop the present writ petition was filed. While filing the
writ petition the petitioner did not disclose the fate of earlier two writ petitions
whereas in those petitions Sri J.N.Mishra, Advocate was counsel. The fact
that two earlier writ petitions have already been dismissed, was within his
knowledge. Accordingly, there appears no excuse for his conduct. He has not
discharged the petitioner’s duty and also not discharged the lawyers’ duty
maintaining the standard of Bar Council of India. A counsel is the officer of
Court. He should come before the Court with clean hand. Non disclosure of
correct fact by a person has been held to be commission of criminal contempt
as held in Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 3
SCC 757.
The petitioner Sri Nar Bahadur Shahi and Sri J.N.Mishra, Advocate have
committed serious misconduct while not disclosing the correct fact in
successive three writ petitions. Their conduct is deplorable. In the case of
Dilip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others- 2010 (2) SCC 114, it has
been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that if false affidavit is filed and correct
fact is not disclosed by the petitioner in a particular case, while dismissing the
writ petition, the Court should impose exemplary costs on the petitioner.
In view of above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. Since
the learned counsel as well as the petitioner who appears in person in the
Court has tendered apology, we are not proceeding for contempt against them
but deplore their conduct.
The writ petition is dismissed with costs which is quantified as Rs.5000/-
each, against Nar Bahadur Shahi and Sri J.N.Mishra, Advocate. The costs be
paid within a month.
Order Date :- 14.7.2010
Zh