LatestLaws.

com

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition No. 60 (S/S) of 2018

Trilok Singh Kathait & another …..Petitioners

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others ….Respondents

Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. M.C. Pande, Addl. Advocate General for the respondent State.

Hon’ble Lok Pal Singh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at
length.

2. This Writ Petition was listed for hearing on

09.01.2018. After hearing Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal,
Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Anil Dabral,
Standing counsel for the State of Uttarakhand the
Bench of his Lordship Justice V.K. Bist passed the
following order :-
“Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Dabral, Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Heard.
Admit.
As prayed for, six weeks’ time is granted to the
learned counsel for the respondents for filing counter
affidavit(s).
List this matter on 27.02.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
petitioners were working in the Institution since 1995. He
submitted that in the year 2011, the institution was
provincialized. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submitted that petitioners are discharging their respective
duties; but, after provincialization of the institution, they
are not being paid salary since May, 2011.
Considering the fact that the petitioners are
continuously working in the institution, I direct the
respondents to pay the salary of the petitioners, which
they were getting in the year 2011 on or before
20.02.2018 with 50 per cent of the arrears, if they have
worked in the institution during this period. It is also
directed to the respondents to pay the regular salary to
the petitioners from the month of February, 2018.
Stay application stands disposed of.”
 LatestLaws.com
2

3. Thereafter, the matter was listed before this

Court on 27.02.2018. Since, the compliance of order
dated 09.01.2018 was not made by the respondents,
this court directed the matter to be listed on
15.03.2018.

4. On 15.03.2018, this Court passed the

following order:-
“Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. C. S. Rawat, Addl. C.S.C for the
State/respondents.
Delay in filing the counter affidavit is condoned.
Delay condonation application is allowed.
Counter affidavit is taken on record.
By order dated 09.01.2018 coordinate Bench of this
Court disposed of the stay application and directed the
respondents to pay the salary of the petitioners, which
they were getting in the year 2011 on or before
20.02.2018 with 50 % of the arrears and shall continue to
pay regular salary to the petitioners from the month of
February, 2018.
It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners that despite the specific directions issued by
this Court vide order dated 09.01.2018 the respondents
are not paying the salary including arrears to the
petitioners. He further submits that, since the respondents
are not complying with the order dated 09.01.2018,
therefore, it is a contempt of this Court’s order dated
09.01.2018. Though the counter affidavit has been filed
by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, but since the order dated
09.01.2018 has not been complied with by the
respondents, therefore, the respondent No. 2- Director,
Intermediate Education, Uttarakhand, Nanurkhera,
Dehradun Shri R.K. Kunwar and Chief Education Officer,
District Rudraprayag, Uttarakhand shall remain present in
person before this Court on 04.04.2018 and explain why
they have not complied with the order dated 09.01.2018.”

5. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for

04.04.2018. Counter affidavit was filed by the
respondent’s along with delay condonation
application. But despite the fact that stay was
granted in the case on 09.01.2018, neither stay
vacation application nor modification application or
 LatestLaws.com
3

affidavit of compliance was filed by the respondents

along with said counter affidavit.

6. When the personal presence of the officers

concerned was secured by this Court, thereafter on
legal advice, the respondents filed a recall application,
bearing no.3871 of 2018 on 24.03.2018, which was
drafted by Mr. Anil Dabral, Standing Counsel for the
State of Uttarakhand. At the time of hearing the
arguments on the recall application, this Court
observed that the working of most of the the State
lawyers is not upto the mark, rather they are working
casually. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of
the recall application, it has come to the knowledge of
the Court that a false affidavit has been filed by Mr.
C.N. Kala, Chief Education Officer, Rudraprayag.

7. The counter affidavit has been drafted by

the Standing Counsel in an improper manner and it is
a mistake on the part of the Standing Counsel and the
officer should not suffer on account of mistake
committed by the Standing Counsel in not drafting
the affidavit correctly, which in turn could not be
verified properly. This court had an occasion to see
such kind of irregularities/misrepresentations in the
applications and counter affidavit(s) drafted by the
Standing Counsel in stereo typed manner and in order
to improve the quality of counter affidavit(s), so that it
may not happen in future, despite the repeated
requests of this court, there seems to be no
improvement in the working of most of the Standing
Counsel appearing before this Court. Then taking this
misconduct seriously, this court had asked the
Standing Counsel to be careful in future and to avoid
 LatestLaws.com
4

committing such irregularities. Then, Standing

Counsel has requested this Court that he has sent a
message to the learned Advocate General, who shall
assure this court that such mistakes will not be
repeated in future by the State Law Officers. But, after
some time, Standing Counsel received information
that Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General is not
feeling well, he requested the Court that alternatively
he has informed Mr. Paresh Tripathi, being the Chief
Standing Counsel that he may explain the things to
the Court.

8. Thereafter, Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Chief

Standing Counsel appeared before this Court to
explain the irregularities and false averments made in
the affidavit accompanying the recall application, filed
on behalf of the officer concerned, drafted by the
Standing Counsel. After reading the said affidavit,
Chief Standing Counsel submitted that there is no
mistake in the affidavit and the same has not been
filed to mislead this court. Then this court invited
attention of the Chief Standing Counsel to the
averments of recall application, false averments made
in said affidavit and also to the fact that proper
verification has not been done. After that he realized
that he also made a false statement that the affidavit
is correct and made statement that what was stated
by him earlier is not correct and admitted the fact that
there is mistake in drafting the recall application and
affidavit filed in support thereof and the verification
has not been properly done and wrong statement has
been made in the affidavit. The Statement was
 LatestLaws.com
5

recorded by the Court in its order dated 04.04.2018,

which reads as under:
“Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel
with Mr. Anil Dabral, Standing Counsel for the State.
In compliance of Court’s order dated
15.03.2018, Mr. R.K. Kunwar, Director Intermediate
Education, Uttarakhand, Nanurkhera, Dehradun and
Mr. C.N. Kala, Chief Education Officer, Rudraprayag,
are present in the Court today.
Recall application CLMA No.3871 of 2018 has
been filed by the State along with the delay
condonation application CLMA No.3872 of 2018.
Delay condonation application is supported by
an affidavit of Mr. C.N. Kala, Chief Education Officer,
District Rudraprayag (respondent no.4 herein). Said
affidavit contains 10 paragraphs. In para-4 and 7,
there is reference of Annexure 1 and 2, respectively.
Though, para nos.2 to 9 have been verified by the
deponent on the basis of record, but with regard to
para nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9, no record has been
annexed. This fact was explained to Mr. Anil Dabral,
Standing Counsel that the affidavit is not properly
verified and he was asked to call Advocate General to
explain the working of the State in filing the affidavits.
On this, Mr. Anil Dabral, submitted that Mr. S.N.
Babulkar, Advocate General is not feeling well today,
hence, he called Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing
Counsel.
On a query by the Court to Mr. Paresh Tripathi,
Chief Standing Counsel with regard to the aforesaid
fact, he submitted that the paragraphs of the affidavit
are properly verified and that there is no mistake in
the verification clause.
On perusal of the contents of the affidavit, as no
record is annexed in support of para nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 8
and 9, this Court is of the opinion that the affidavit
has not been properly verified as per the provisions of
Order 19 Rule 6 of C.P.C.
Averments made in para nos.8 and 9 of the
affidavit appears to be false and has been made just
to mislead the Court as this recall application has
been filed on 24.03.2018, after the order was passed
by this Court on dated 27.02.2018, directing
respondent nos.2 and 4 to appear in person before
this Court.
At this stage, learned C.S.C. submits that
averments made in para-9 of the affidavit are
apparently wrong. This Court observes that this
statement made by learned C.S.C. is contrary to the
statement given above. It is not expected from a Chief
Standing Counsel to change his stand. Learned C.S.C.
 LatestLaws.com
6

further submits that after perusal of the affidavit he

had made statement that the averment made by the
deponent is correct, but now he has realized the fact
that file was allotted on 20.02.2018 for preparation of
counter affidavit and on 20.03.2018 it was allotted
for recall application but due to some typographical
mistake, this has occurred. In my opinion, explanation
given by learned C.S.C. is not proper and has been
made just to defend the deponent.
In the above circumstances, respondent no.4-Mr.
C.N. Kala, Chief Education Officer, District
Rudraprayag shall submit his reply as to why he has
made false averments in the affidavit and shall also
show cause why he should not be punished for
making such false averments in the affidavit. Such
reply shall be submitted within a period of two
weeks.
List on 20.04.2018.
Officers concerned shall remain present on the
next date.”

9. Thereafter, the writ Petition was listed

before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on
20.04.2018 and the matter was further directed to be
listed on 26.04.2018. The case was adjourned at the
request of Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing
Counsel on 04.04.2018 and was directed to be listed
on 20.04.2018 for hearing his arguments in the
matter, but thereafter neither learned Advocate
General, Mr. S.N. Babulkar appeared to explain the
things before this Court, nor the Chief Standing
Counsel, Mr. Paresh Tripathi appeared before this
Court to contest the case on behalf of the State
Government and to explain what has been done in
furtherance of the order passed by this Court and
what steps have been taken by him not to repeat such
mistake in filing the affidavit(s) in the court. But the
Chief Standing Counsel deliberately did not appear
before this Court to explain the things though it was
expected from him, considering the gravity of the
matter, that being a Chief Standing Counsel, as also
 LatestLaws.com
7

being the Head in the matters of allotment of the

narratives, he should appear, without fail, before the
Court in complicated matters to argue them and to
provide assistance to the Court also.

10. Despite the fact that adjournment was

sought on the pretext that Advocate General will
appear on 04.04.2018 and believing such statement
the date was fixed, but on the date fixed neither Mr.
S.N Babulkar, Advocate General appeared before this
Court, nor Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing
Counsel informed this Court about the alleged illness
of the Advocate General, This court has noticed that
Advocate General was in the court campus and
appeared in different cases in other courts.

11. The statement made by Mr. Paresh

Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel on 04.04.2018
signifies that he tried to mislead the Court to defend
the erring officer, who filed the affidavit containing
false averments and no application for correction of
the mistake has been filed yet. Chief Standing
Counsel also tried to defend the erring officer, who
have not complied with the orders passed by the
Court and has taken a fabricated and false stand to
save them, which is enough to show that this act was
calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course
of justice and administration of law by acting in
opposition to the authority, justice and dignity
thereof. Said act signifies a willful disregard or
disobedience of the Court’s order. The act of
disobedience tends to bring the authority of the court
and the administration of law into disrepute. His
 LatestLaws.com
8

conduct is, therefore, comprehended by the principles

underlying the law of contempt.

12. An Advocate appearing for private

respondent or a State Law officer are the officers of
the Court and it is expected from them to assist the
Court in dispensation of justice and not to defend
their respective clients on false pretext, but the
conduct of Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing
Counsel was not to assist the Court, rather he tried to
defend the erring officers on false pretext, which
definitely is a calculated act to obstruct or interfere
with the due course of justice and administration of
law.

13. I had an occasion to see that Mr. Paresh

Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel is avoiding my
Court. When I sit single, he did not appear before me
for the reasons best known to him. I had an occasion
to sit with Hon’ble the Chief Justice in Division Bench
for four days though always he remains present since
morning to evening in the Court of Hon’ble the Chief
Justice, but when I was sitting with Hon’ble the Chief
Justice in the Division Bench, he did not appear
before the Court. Most of the lawyers of the State
Government, who are the Brief Holders and the
Standing Counsel, they are arguing the most
important matters before the Bench headed by
Hon’ble the Chief Justice, however, in most of the
cases it seems that the Deputy Advocate Generals
appointed by the State Governments are merely
appearing just to seek the time to file counter
affidavit. Since, Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing
 LatestLaws.com
9

Counsel is not deliberately appearing in my Court and

is avoiding my Court deliberately and willingly and he
has made a false statement to mislead this Court,
such an act is contemptuous. Despite the assurance
given by him, he did not appear on 20.04.2018 and
24.04.2018 and had failed to safe guard the interest of
the State and deliberately made an attempt to mislead
this Court. It seems to me that when he made false
statement before this Court on 24.04.2018, he is
deliberately avoiding this Court to cover up his act of
making false statement before the Court. Today also,
despite assurance made by him that he will remain
present in the Court, he did not appear, neither any
communication was sent informing the Court that
learned Advocate General is indisposed of and sent
Mr. M.C. Pande, Addl. Advocate General to conduct
the case on behalf of respondent State. Therefore, the
said act comes within the definition of willful
disobedience of the court’s order in making a false
statement and he failed to obey the undertaking given
by him before this Court on 04.04.2018. Thus the
contempt proceedings under Section 2(b) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of
the Constitution of India are being drawn against Mr.
Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel. The Court
while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 2(b) of
the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of
the Constitution of India, suo moto, draws the
proceedings against Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Chief
Standing Counsel, State of Uttarakhand, for
committing the contempt. He is put to notice to
explain why he should not be held guilty for
 LatestLaws.com
10

committing the contempt of the Court, fixing

14.05.2018.

14. On the date fixed, he shall file reply to

explain his conduct before the Court as to why he
may not be held guilty for committing contempt of this
Court and be punished for committing contempt of
this Court.

15. Registry is directed to issue notice to Mr.

Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel, State of
Uttarakhand annexing a copy of this order so as to
enable him to file reply on or before the date fixed.

16. The presence of the officers concerned is

not exempted as this Court is not convinced with the
affidavit filed by the Officer concerned.

17. Officers concerned shall remain present

before this Court on 14.05.2018 to explain/show
cause as to why they may not be held guilty for
committing willful disobedience of the Court’s order
dated 09.01.2018.

18. Let copy of the order be sent to the

Principal Secretary Law-cum-L.R., Government of
Uttarakhand, Dehradun to apprise the State
Government about the observations made in the
order.

(Lok Pal Singh, J.)

26.04.2018
Shiksha
LatestLaws.com
11