The Gujarat High Court recently questioned a lawyer for concealing information regarding the dismissal of his client’s petition by a Division Bench in a land dispute case.
The petitioners, Panchmahal Shikshan Pracharak Mandal and its President, Bhupesh Sharadkumar Shah, were pursuing a plea before a single-judge bench challenging the State’s decision to reclaim a plot of land previously allotted to their trust. This petition was pressed despite a Division Bench already affirming the State's decision.
On October 24, Justice Nikhil S. Kariel directed advocate B.M. Mangukiya to submit an affidavit explaining why the Division Bench’s order from August 21 was not disclosed to the Court during the hearing on October 11.
"Let such affidavit be filed on or before 29.10.2024. List this matter on 30.10.2024," the Court ordered.
The Court, meanwhile, accepted an apology from the petitioner, Bhupesh Sharadkumar Shah, after advocate B.M. Mangukiya stated that he alone would take full responsibility for the "miscommunication."
"This will not go unnoticed. I have the highest respect for learned advocates but then learned advocates should also behave as officers of court," Justice Kariel observed during the hearing, while seeking affidavit from Mangukiya.
While addressing the petitioner’s case, the single judge had previously directed the District Collector of Panchmahal to appear before the Court. This summons was issued after the Court observed that the petitioner’s application concerning the matter had not been resolved in accordance with an earlier court order.
On October 17, the State informed the single judge about the Division Bench's order, revealing that an appeal against that decision had already been filed with the Supreme Court. In light of this information, the single judge remarked on his earlier directive.
"To this Court, it would appear that while this Court may or may not have taken the above decision on 11.10.2024, but, if order dated 21.08.2024 had been brought to the notice of this Court on 11.10.2024, then possibly the entire controversy as noted in the order could have been viewed by this Court from a different perspective."
The Court noted that the current petition contesting the State's decision had become infructuous following the Division Bench's ruling.
Earlier, Mangukiya had claimed that he was not informed about the Division Bench's ruling by his client. However, the Court established that the case before the Division Bench had been filed by Mangukiya himself.
"Be that as it may, since it has been categorically stated by learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya that the petitioners had not informed the fact of order dated 21.08.2024 being passed and the fact of the petitioners having approached the Hon’ble Apex Court challenging the said order, to this Court, it would appear that the petitioners are prima facie guilty of gross suppression of the material fact and whereas, as noticed hereinabove, such suppression has resulted in probably unwarranted consequences," the Court had said in order dated October 17.
Advocates B.M. Mangukiya and Bela M. Prajapati represented the petitioners, while Government Pleader G.H. Virk and Assistant Government Pleader Dharitri Pancholi appeared on behalf of the State.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy