Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) Case has been taken up in the revised list but Sri Ranjit Saxena, counsel for the respondent- Power Corporation is not present. Sri Brij Lal Verma, who is not in the panel of the Power Corporation, states that he is holding brief of Sri Ranjit Saxena in this case. He states that the brief has been handed over to him by Sri Ranjit Saxena for arguing the present recall application.
(2.) At the outset, Court requested Sri Brij Lal Verma to address the Court whether he, as a private counsel, can hold the brief of Special counsel/Government counsel on the panel of the Corporation or not. Sri Brij Lal Verma submitted that he can argue the matter since he has been directed to do so by Sri Ranjit Saxena.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that neither Sri Ranjit Saxena nor Sri Brij Lal Verma can file the recall application and argue the case for the following reasons : 1. The writ petition was decided by judgment and order dated 31.1.2006 after hearing counsel for both the parties. At the relevant time, Sri R.D. Khare had argued the matter on behalf of U.P. Power Corporation- respondent No. 2. Sri Ranjit Saxena had not been allotted this case by the U.P. Power Corporation at that time. The judgment having been delivered after hearing counsel for the parties, Sri Ranjit Saxena cannot file recall application having been engaged subsequent to the decision in the writ petition. 2. Recall application, if any, can be filed by only Sri R.D. Khare, who was counsel for the Power Corporation at the time of hearing. In case, the writ petition is restored, Sri Ranjit Saxena may be allotted the case by U.P. Power Corporation but a decided case cannot be allotted to any counsel subsequently after the judgment has been delivered. 3. No Vakalantnama has been filed by Sri Ranjeet Saxena along with counter affidavit.;