- (1.) This petition was initially entertained by a Bench consisting of Hon',ble Mr. Justice K.N. Singh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy and notices were issued. The matter was listed before the Court on 11.1.91. On that date Mr. A. Subba Rao, counsel for the Union of India, obtained two weeks's time for filing counter-affidavit. On 27th November, 1991 on a mention made by the counsel for the petitioners before the Chief Justice's Court, the matter was adjourned to 3rd December, 1991. Inspite of that order the matter was listed before a Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Dr. Justice T.K. Thommen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy on 2.12.1991. On 2.12.1991 Mr. A. Subba Rao counsel for the Union of India made a mention before the aforesaid Bench and got the case adjourned to 19.12.1991 in the absence of the petitioner's counsel. The Bench was aware that this matter was listed on 3.12. 1991 but on the request of the Union Government's counsel the Bench adjourned the matter to 19.12.1991. On 3.12.1991 the petitioner's counsel made a mention for adjournment before Chief Justice after serving adjournment slip on the Central Agency but no counsel appeared on behalf of the Union of India to oppose the request made by the petitioner's counsel for adjournment. In the circumstances on 3.12.1991 at the request of the petitioners counsel the Chief Justice adjourned the matter to 9.12.1991. That is how this matter was placed before the Court for hearing.
(2.) The aforesaid facts would show that the counsel for the Union of India as well as the petitioner's counsel both got adjournments without disclosing the correct facts to the Court, their conduct has not been fair. The Court was not aware on 3.12.1991 that the case has already been adjourned to 19.12.1991. The petitioner's counsel stated that since the Union Govt.'s counsel got the case adjourned in his absence on 2.12.1991, he did not have the knowledge that the case was already adjourned to 19.12.1991, therefore, while mentioning the matter before the Chief Justice's Court on 3.12.1991 he could not bring this fact to the notice of the Court. Mr. A. Subba Rao, counsel for the Union of India, at first stated that on 3.12.1991 the petitioner's counsel mentioned the matter without giving information to him as a result of which he could not be present before the Court to oppose the adjournment or to point out the facts to the Court that the case had already been fixed for 19.12.1991. But when petitioners counsel and the Court master confronted Mr. A. Subba Rao with the mentioning slip which contained receipt on behalf of the Central Agency, he could not give any explanation as to why none appeared before the Court. These facts show that the counsel for the Union of India faulted in the matter.
(3.) Even though today the case is listed for hearing but no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union of India. Since a controversy has been raised about the listing of the case before this Court and in certain quarters a doubt has ben raised about the correctness of the procedure followed in listing the case today before this Court and we considered it necessary to put the record straight by giving details of the events leading to the listing of this case before this Bench. We do not consider it necessary to take any further action in the matter but we would like to caution the counsel for the parties to be more circumspect and fair while mentioning the cases in future before the Court.;