Dharamveer Singh Mahawal and Another Vs District Basic Education Officer and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Dharamveer Singh Mahawal and Another Vs District Basic Education Officer and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; order dated 16.05.2025 of the learned Single Judge set aside; Writ-A No. 39968 of 2000 restored to its original number; petitioners/counsel to ensure the matter is duly attended when next listed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition could properly be disposed of by the learned Single Judge merely because the interim order had remained in currency and petitioner no. 1 had attained the age of superannuation. +1 more

Court's answer

The writ petition could not have been disposed of merely on the ground that the interim order was in currency for years and one petitioner had attained superannuation, since unless the order dated 17.04.2000 were set aside the appellants would stand deprived of their retiral benefits.

Ratio / Principle

Where the petitioners or their counsel are not available when the matter is called out, the matter can only be dismissed for non-prosecution.

Key takeaways

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, disposing of the matter and imposing cost for such non-appearance was not warranted.ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Special Appeal allowed. The learned Single Judge had disposed of a writ petition pending since 2000 (challenging an order dated 17.04.2000, stayed by interim order dated 22.11.2000) on the ground that the interim order had long remained in currency and petitioner no. 1 had attained superannuation, and imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on each petitioner for non-appearance of counsel. Held: where petitioners or their counsel are unavailable when the matter is called out, the matter can only be dismissed for non-prosecution, not disposed of with costs; further, mere currency of an interim order and superannuation of a petitioner did not justify disposal, since the appellants stood to be deprived of retiral benefits unless the order dated 17.04.2000 were set aside. The order dated 16.05.2025 was set aside and Writ-A No. 39968 of 2000 restored to its original number, with a direction that the matter be duly attended when next listed.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 738 of 2025

Dharamveer Singh Mahawal and another

.....Appellant(s)

Versus District Basic Education Officer and 3 others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ajay Mishra, Shri Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Chief Justice's Court

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 39968 of 2000 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants-petitioners, in absence of their counsel, has been disposed of and on account of absence of counsel, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed on each petitioner to be deposited with District Legal Services Authority, Ghaziabad.

Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that when the petition came up before the Court, as counsel for the petitioners had not received the intimation from the office, which is normally received, he could not appear before the Court when the matter was called out.

Submission has been made that as the cost of Rs. 10,000/- each has been imposed on the two petitioners, without depositing the cost the application seeking restoration of the writ petition is not being entertained by the office.

Further submission has been made that the disposal of the writ petition without adjudicating the same on merits, would be to great prejudice to the petitioners as they may not be granted the post retiral benefits unless the matter is adjudicated on merits and, therefore, the cost, as imposed, may be set aside and the writ petition may be restored to its original number.

Counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. Submission has been made that the learned Single Judge has indicated reasons for imposing cost and, therefore, there is no reason for any interference to be made with the said order.

SPLAD No. 738 of 2025

2

We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

The writ petition was filed by the petitioners aggrieved of the order dated 17.04.2000 and another order passed pursuant to the said order dated 17.04.2000. The petition was pending since the year 2000 and when the same came up for hearing on 16.05.2025, learned Single Judge noticed that the interim order was granted by the Court on 22.11.2000 whereby the order dated 17.04.2000 was stayed and as the petitioners have enjoyed the interim order and the petitioner no. 1 has attained the age of superannuation, considering the interim order and the age of the petitioners, the petition was disposed of.

Looking to the nature of challenge laid by the petitioners, only on account of the fact that the interim order was in currency for all these years and one of the petitioners has attained the age of superannuation, the petition could not have been disposed of by learned Single Judge as, unless the order dated 17.04.2000 is set aside, the appellants may be deprived of their retiral benefits, as submitted by counsel for the appellants.

It is well settled that in case the petitioners or counsel for the petitioners are/is not available when the matter is called out, the matter can only be dismissed for non prosecution and disposing of a matter and imposing cost for such non-appearance, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, does not appear to be warranted.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed .

The order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside.

Writ-A No. 39968 of 2000 is restored to its original number.

It would be ensured by the petitioners/counsel for the petitioners that when the matter is next listed, the same would be duly attended.

(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

September 17, 2025 nd/AKShukla

Digitally signed by :- NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad