Tarvinder Singh Marwah v. The Director, Director of Gurdwara Election & Ors

1. This order is in continuation of the order dated 7.12.2016, on which date, Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the respondents, who appeared on advance notice, had opposed the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that the petitioner has approached the Court with unclean hands having failed to state that as recently as in the month of September, 2016, he had filed an application seeking impleadment in a disposed of writ petition, registered as W.P.(C) 4155/ 2016 entitled “Paramjit Singh Sarna vs. The Director, Directorate of Gurudwara Elections”. The said application was dismissed, vide order dated 30.09.2016, on twin grounds, firstly that impleadment in a disposed of petition was not maintainable and secondly, with an observation that there can be no direction for preparation 2016:DHC:8032 of fresh electoral rolls when the respondents, who are responsible for holding the elections and preparation of the electoral rolls, have deemed it fit only to revise the electoral rolls. Observing that the exercise of preparation of fresh electoral rolls would delay the elections, the said impleadment application was dismissed.

2. On enquiring from Mr. Suri, learned Senior Advocate, who was appearing for the petitioner as to whether any averment with regard to the order dated 30.9.2016 has been made in the present petition, he had fairly stated that no such averment has been made as the briefing counsel was not given any instructions in respect of the previous litigation on the issue. A request for an adjournment was made to enable the briefing counsel to obtain instructions from his client on this aspect. At his request, the petition was renotified for today.

3. Mr. Suri, learned Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr. Avinash Kumar, counsel for the petitioner states, on instructions, that the petitioner had in fact forwarded a copy of the order dated 30.9.2016 to the briefing counsel, but due to inadvertence/oversight on his part, at the time of drafting the petition, the said order had escaped his attention.

4. Mr. Avinash Kumar, counsel for the petitioner tenders an unqualified apology for the oversight and assures the Court that he shall be more careful in future.

5. Accepting the unqualified apology tendered by the counsel for the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to take the matter further.

6. As for the merits of the present petition, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner states, on instructions, that the petitioner does not wish to press the present petition.

7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn, along with the pending applications. HIMA KOHLI, J DECEMBER 16, 2016 sk