MISRA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge who has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition filed by the appellant imposing cost on the petitioner/appellant herein who had appeared in person.
(2.) THE circumstances under which the writ petition was dismissed with cost discloses that the petitioner being a member of Kishangarh Bar Association challenged the direction issued by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarh (Ajmer) vide his letter dated 3rd August, 2004. Vide the impugned letter, the Presiding Officer had issued instructions to the Principal Medical Officer, Government Yagya Narain Hospital, Kishangarh to constitute a Board for medical examination of medico legal cases. Obviously, since the Presiding Officer in his experience noticed that bogus medical certificates and injury reports were issued by a single doctor, the Presiding Officer as per Rule 2 (i) of the Rajasthan Employment of the Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules') issued instructions that a Medical Board of three medical officers out of which at least one shall be a specialist not below the rank of Associate Professor or Junior Specialist in particular field be constituted for adjudging the disability of the affected persons. THE appellant for the reasons best known to her felt aggrieved of this order and filed the writ petition challenging the order of the Presiding Officer before the learned Single Judge on the ground that under Rule 10. 2 (3) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, a certificate of disability can be issued by a single medical officer which is indicated in the prescribed proforma. THE learned Single Judge issued notice on this plea of the appellant to the Presiding Officer which was explained on behalf of the Presiding Officer, MACT, Kishangarh (Ajmer) that in order to check the issuance of false medical reports as also to ensure genuineness and veracity of the medical certificates/disability certificates/injury reports issued by a single doctor which many a times was found to be fake and concocted, had prompted the Presiding Officer to issue direction for issuance of such medical certificates by the medical Board. Learned Single Judge appreciated this step of the Presiding Officer and obviously felt that the writ petition challenging such order of the Presiding Officer was motivated and, therefore, dismissed the writ petition imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the petitioner who was appearing in person. The appellant appearing in person vehemently contended that the Presiding Officer was not justified in issuing such direction and the learned Single Judge has erred in upholding such instructions issued by the Presiding Officer as it is contrary to the Rules. We find no substance in this plea of the appellant as we fail to appreciate her anxiety against issuance of such instruction by the Presiding Officer. Any action taken by the Court or any Presiding Officer, has to be judged in the light of the reason assigned and taking into consideration its practical implication on the issue involved, we fail to understand the anxiety of the appellant in challenging such instructions of the Presiding Officer even though there might be some technical limitations before the Presiding Officer for issuing such circular. The appellant, in our view, ought to have appreciated such move of the Presiding Officer in order to restrict filing of manufactured injury or disability certificates, yet the appellant felt aggrieved and went to the extent of challenging the same for a technical reason to the effect that the Presiding Officer was not legally empowered to issue such instructions which is not fit to be sustained as the learned Single Judge while entertaining a writ petition had the jurisdiction to consider whether the impugned action was unjust so as to interfere by issuing a writ. If the action of the Presiding Officer did not result into miscarriage of justice to the victims of accidents in any manner, interference into the same has rightly not been done by the Single Judge. We, therefore, upheld the order of the learned Single Judge and do not wish to interfere with the same. We further, consider it appropriate to uphold imposition of cost on the petitioner/appellant to be paid to the concerned Presiding Officer, MACT Kishangarh (Ajmer) as the appellant has tried to attribute motive to the judge attempting to tarnish his image by relying upon a technical plea obviously for wrongful gain to the litigants who indulge in procuring false injury report or disability certificate to fleece insurance companies. However, taking into consideration the fact that the appellant is a junior member of the bar and still in the process of gaining experience, we deem it appropriate to reduce the cost from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 1,000/- payable to the Judge, MACT, Kishangarh (Ajmer) by way of token compensation to him. This order to communicated to him by the Registry for realizing this cost from the appellant Preeti Mehta. The appeal stands dismissed subject to reduction in the amount of cost imposed. . ;