- (1.) Heard Sri Rajendra Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. This writ petition was heard on 4.12.2009 and the judgment itself was dictated in open Court dismissing the writ petition. The judgment writer, however, could not take the dictation completely and after a long time submitted a transcription full of several gaps and extraordinary mistakes making virtually impossible to understand as to what has been said there. His explanation was called by my order dated 13.4.2010 on administrative side, besides seeking explanation from Head Private Secretary. Everybody tried to shift burden on others. Since the matter came before me after more than six months and it needed redictation of judgment, in the fitness of things I find it expedient that the writ petition should be listed in the Court again so that counsels may also appear and in their presence it should be dictated again after giving them opportunity to address, if the Court finds such occasion. I, therefore, passed order on 13.4.2010, relevant extract whereof is as under: Since the judgment was dictated in the open Court and it requires to be dictated again, list this matter in the Court when I am sitting singly for dictation of the judgment in the Court again in the presence of learned counsel for the parties as it is not appropriate to dictate the judgment again and that too after such a long time particularly when from the judgment it is difficult to discern as to what was considered and what was decided therein.
(2.) Sri Rajendra Rai, learned counsel appearing for petitioner taking advantage that the case has been listed again, sought to file a supplementary affidavit taking a stand that some documents earlier could not be placed before this Court and to do justice the said documents may also be looked into. Though it was wholly improper on his part to submit any fresh pleadings and documents at this stage, but the learned Standing Counsel stated that he does not propose to file any further reply since everything is already contained in his earlier counter-affidavit, in the interest of justice, so that for mere technicalities, parties to the litigation, may not suffer, I permitted him to place the said documents.
(3.) After hearing the parties the judgment is dictated in open Court today itself.;