BRAHMDEO THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD in part.

(2.) MR . S.S.P. Yadav for the petitioner, and Mr. Sunil Kumar Karn, learned junior counsel to Additional Advocate General No. VI, for the respondents are present. The petitioner claims salary as a Dresser from the date of his joining at Biraul in March/April 1992 till 11.6.1996. He joined at Singhwara on 12.6.1996, and is being paid salary. After elaborate submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner consuming a lot of time, the learned Government counsel commenced his submissions in opposition to the writ petition. He placed reliance on the supplementary counter affidavit filed by respondent nos. 6 and 7 which has been sworn by Anil Kumar Thakur, Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Singhwara, on 31.8.2007. The respondent authorities have already placed on record two counter affidavits earlier. The supplementary counter affidavit does not place on record the documents in support of the statements made therein, and the deponent tends to confront this Court with his conclusions. It also does not deal with the documents relied on by the petitioner marked Annexures 1, 4, 6, 9 and 11. etc. In case of a dispute, the concerned authority is duty bound to make relevant averments in the counter affidavit, and place on record copies of all the documents in support of the averments, as well as copies of the relevant documents necessary for the disposal of the lis, to enable the Court to come to its own conclusions. In most of the counter affidavits of the State Government, the respondents do not place on record copies of the documents in support of the averments in the counter affidavit, let alone copies of other relevant documents. If this were permitted, the power of judicial review conferred by the constitution on this Court shall be rendered nugatory, and the respondents will claim dismissal of the writ petition on the basis of their conclusions stated in the counter affidavit. The same law is applicable to the petitioners also. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2181, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow: ".......In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter -affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. So, the point that has been raised before us by the appellants is not entertainable. But, in spite of that, we have entertained it to show that it is devoid of any merit." (Emphasis added)

(3.) THE said Anil Kumar Thakur is responsible for wasting so much of Court 'stime, and delaying disposal of the proceedings. As prayed for on his behalf, eight weeks ' time is granted to place on record copies of the relevant documents in support of the statements made in the counter affidavit by way of supplementary counter affidavit, apart from other documents relevant for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition. In case any document is found to be bulky, the learned Government Counsel shall be in possession of the same in original to be produced at the time of arguments. Anil Kumar Thakur, the said deponent, shall deposit cost of Rs. 5,000/ - (rupees five thousand) in the High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna, from his personal pocket within the same time, by way of costs of adjournment.