Aseem Garg vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Aseem Garg, filed an application (ABLAPL No.2244 of 2021) before the High Court of Orissa. The opposite parties, Union of India and another (GST authorities), filed an Interlocutory Application (I.A. No.664 of 2021) in this matter. In I.A. No.664 of 2021, the GST counsel allegedly made aspersions on the Court, suggesting that an order dated 16.03.2021 was passed in a hurried and hasty manner contrary to submissions. Subsequently, the GST authorities filed another Interlocutory Application (I.A. No.972 of 2021) seeking to withdraw I.A. No.664 of 2021. The GST counsel also filed an affidavit dated 11.09.2021, begging an unconditional apology for the previous conduct.

Held

The Court considered the prayer of the learned Standing Counsel for the GST to withdraw I.A. No.664 of 2021. The Standing Counsel stated that such a mistake would not be committed in the future and had filed an affidavit dated 11.09.2021, begging an unconditional apology. In light of this, the Court decided to allow the withdrawal of both I.A. No.664 of 2021 and I.A. No.972 of 2021. The reasoning is based on the acceptance of the apology and the desire to dispose of the matter amicably, given the GST authorities' acknowledgment of their error and commitment to future propriety. The ratio decidendi is that when a party errs in its submissions to the court, files an application containing objectionable remarks, and subsequently files an unconditional apology and seeks withdrawal, the court may permit such withdrawal to maintain decorum and facilitate the smooth functioning of justice. The operative direction was that both I.A. No.664 of 2021 and I.A. No.972 of 2021 stand disposed of being withdrawn.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Interlocutory Application No.664 of 2021, filed by the Opposite Parties (GST authorities), which allegedly contained aspersions on the Court's order dated 16.03.2021, should be permitted to be withdrawn. This issue turns on the Court's discretion to allow withdrawal of applications and manage its proceedings, particularly when an apology has been tendered. The petitioner's specific arguments are not recorded. The revenue's (Opposite Parties) contention, as evidenced by their actions, is that they wish to withdraw the said application and have tendered an unconditional apology, indicating a desire to rectify their conduct. They relied on their subsequent application (I.A. No.972 of 2021) and the affidavit filed.