The Union Of INDIA vs. M/S Kison (A Sole Proprietorship Firm)

Held

The Court held that the supplementary counter affidavit sworn on January 21, 2022, was indeed filed online on January 22, 2022, prior to the original order being passed on January 24, 2022. The Court found it unnecessary to inquire into the dispute regarding the email service of the supplementary counter affidavit. The Court acknowledged that the adjudication order had already been passed by the competent authority on December 31, 2021. The Court reasoned that if the fact of the adjudication order having been passed had been brought to the notice of the Division Bench on January 24, 2022, the Bench would not have issued directions for a fresh adjudication. Therefore, the Court recalled the order dated January 24, 2022, and declared that the writ petition had become infructuous, noting that the petitioner had already challenged the adjudication order separately. The Civil Review Application was disposed of, and CWJC No. 13380 of 2021 was to be listed for passing an appropriate order in view of the recall.

Facts

The Union of India and other revenue authorities filed a review application seeking to recall an order dated January 24, 2022, passed by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 13380 of 2021. The original writ petition was heard via video conferencing during the Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioners contended that during the hearing, the ASG was unable to properly inform the Court that the Adjudicating Authority had already passed an adjudication order on December 31, 2021. This order was sought to be produced via a supplementary counter affidavit filed online on January 22, 2022, though it appeared on the portal as filed on January 24, 2022. The petitioners argued that allowing the original order to stand would require the Adjudicating Authority to pass another order on the same issue, and the writ petitioner had already challenged the adjudication order in a fresh writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated January 24, 2022, passed in CWJC No. 13380 of 2021, directing the appropriate authority to consider and decide the issue, should be recalled and the writ petition treated as infructuous, given that an adjudication order had already been passed on December 31, 2021. (Question of mixed law and fact, relating to the procedural correctness of the original order and the impact of subsequent events). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the Adjudicating Authority had already passed a detailed adjudication order on December 31, 2021, which was intended to be placed before the Court via a supplementary counter affidavit. They contended that due to technical glitches during video conferencing, this crucial fact was not properly communicated or recorded. If the original order remained, it would lead to a redundant adjudication process. They also noted that the writ petitioner had already filed a fresh writ petition challenging the adjudication order. Opposite Party's Arguments: The writ petitioner (opposite party in the review) vehemently opposed the review application. They argued that the ASG had not informed the Hon'ble Division Bench about the passing of the adjudication order. They also disputed the service of the supplementary counter affidavit via email. They maintained that there was no fault on their part and the respondents should comply with the mandamus issued in the original order.