# M/s Maya Press Pvt. Ltd. Allahabad & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 3 ILRA 1440
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-12-18
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 647 of 2015
- **Bench:** Krishna Murari, Amar Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-maya-press-pvt-ltd-allahabad-anr-v-union-of-india-ors-43339
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-Writ
Petition-petitioner to disclose all matterial
true facts-if matterial facts discovered by
Courts
to
subsequently-Judge
should
impose exemplary cost also-Learned Single
Judge rightly impose cost of Rs. One LacsAppellate Court declined to interfere.
Held: Para-23
Learned Single Judge has relied upon
various pronouncements of the Hon'ble
Apex Court laying down that if a litigant is
found guilty of concealment of material
facts or making an attempt to pollute the
pure stream of justice, the Court not only
has the right but a duty to deny relief to
such a person. A litigant, who seeks shelter
of
falsehood,
misrepresentation
and
suppression
of
facts
in
invoking
the
extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this
Court conferred by Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is not liable for any
indulgence.
Case Law discussed:
(2012) 6 SCC 430; (2010) 2 SCC 114; [(2012)
12 SCC 133]

## Text

1440
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rendered in a work charged establishment
cannot be clubbed with service in a
regular establishment unless there is a
specific provision to that effect in the
relevant Statutes. Article 370(ii) of the
Civil Service Regulations specifically, on
the contrary, excludes the period of service
rendered in a work charged establishment
for the purposes of payment of pension and
we have in the earlier part of this judgment
held that the decision of the Supreme
Court in Narata Singh (supra), which
relates to Rule 3.17(i) of the Punjab
Electricity Rules, does not advance the
case of the appellant. In this view of the
matter, the appellant is not justified in
contending that the period of service
rendered from 1 October 1982 to 5 January
1996 as a work charged employee should
be added for the purpose of computing the
qualifying service for payment of pension."
11. As indicated above, the service
of
the
petitioner
in
the
regular
establishment is only for a period of 3
years,10 months and 21 days, he is not
entitled to get the pensionary benefits as
claimed by hi. Further, for the reasons
indicated above, t he services performed
by the petitioner in the work charged
establishment are not liable to be counted
as qualifying services for the purposes of
payment of post-retiral /terminal benefits.
12. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, the relief as claimed by the
petitioner cannot be granted and the writ
petition lacks merit and is liable to be
dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
14. Costs easy.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.
THE HON'BLE AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Special Appeal Defective No. 647 of 2015
M/s Maya Press Pvt. Ltd. Allahabad &
Anr.
 ...Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Bhagwati Prasad Singh, Sri Krishna
Mohan
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.S.G.I., Sri S. Upadhyay
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-Writ
Petition-petitioner to disclose all matterial
true facts-if matterial facts discovered by
Courts
to
subsequently-Judge
should
impose exemplary cost also-Learned Single
Judge rightly impose cost of Rs. One LacsAppellate Court declined to interfere.
Held: Para-23
Learned Single Judge has relied upon
various pronouncements of the Hon'ble
Apex Court laying down that if a litigant is
found guilty of concealment of material
facts or making an attempt to pollute the
pure stream of justice, the Court not only
has the right but a duty to deny relief to
such a person. A litigant, who seeks shelter
of
falsehood,
misrepresentation
and
suppression
of
facts
in
invoking
the
extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this
Court conferred by Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is not liable for any
indulgence.
Case Law discussed:
(2012) 6 SCC 430; (2010) 2 SCC 114; [(2012)
12 SCC 133]
(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.)
3 All.
M/s Maya Press Pvt. Ltd. Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1441
1. This intra court appeal under the
Rules of the Court is directed against the
judgment and order dated 31.07.2015
passed
by
learned
Single
Judge
dismissing the Writ Petition No. 39655 of
2015.
2.
First appellant is a company
incorporated under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 1956 having registered
office at 281 Muthiganj, Allahabad and the
second appellant is the Director of the
company. Both the appellants filed writ
petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash
the notice dated 22.05.2015 issued by
Assistant
Regional
Provident
Fund
Commissioner/Recovery
Officer,
respondent no. 3 herein under Section 8-B
(i) of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 (hereinafter
referred to as Act, 1952) and Income Tax
Act, 1961 issued to appellant no. 2 to show
cause why he may not be detain in civil
prison for failure to satisfy the demand
raised by Recovery Certificate RRC No.
5065 dated 20.04.2001, 40731 dated
08.04.2004, 45857 dated 27.04.2000 for a
sum of Rs.71,81,297/- and has also failed to
pay the interest under Section 7Q of the
Act, 1952.
3. An objection was raised by the
respondents in the writ petition that the
present petition is the second petition for
the same cause of action. Learned Single
Judge after hearing the matter on 20th
July, 2015 passed the following order.
"By means of present writ petition,
the petitioners have prayed for rejecting
the impugned recovery notice dated
22.5.2015 under Section 8-B (i) of the
EPF & MP Act, 1952 and the Income Tax
Act, 1961 issued by the respondent no.3
to the petitioner no.2 and further prayed
for direction to the respondents to decide
the
petitioner's
representation
dated
11.1.2014and 4.7.2014 after affording due
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Shri Amit Negi, learned counsel for
the contesting respondents states that the
petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition
No.11936 of 2009 (M/s Maya Press (P)
Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.) for
quashing the warrant of arrest dated
26.11.2008 issued by the Recovery
Officer,
Employees
Provident
Fund
Organization, Varanasi, pursuant to the
recovery certificate issued under Section
8-C of the Employees Provident Fund and
Misc. Provisions Act for recovery of
Rs.71,81,297/-. This Court vide order
dated 6.3.2009 had disposed of the writ
petition with following observations:-
"The petitioners will file an application
under Section 8-E of the Employees
Provident
Fund
and
Miscellaneous
Provisions Act before the authorised officer
seeking time to make the payment. This
application shall be filed on or before the
31st March, 2009. If such an application is
filed, the authority will pass appropriate
orders on the said application expeditiously
after affording an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners. In the meantime, the warrant
of arrest dated 26.11.2008 shall remain in
abeyance till the disposal of the petitioners'
application provided the petitioners deposits
a sum of Rs. twenty lac within four weeks
from today.
The writ petition is disposed of.
A certified copy of this order shall be
made available to the petitioners on
payment of usual charges within 24 hours.
Shri Negi, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that there is material
concealment in the matter. Nowhere it has
been averred regarding the previous writ
petition. He further apprised to the Court
that in compliance of the order passed by
this Court the petitioner had also not
1442
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deposited Rs.20 lacs within stipulated
time and had filed Special Appeal No.670
of 2009 (M/s Maya Press (P) Ltd. & Anr.
v. Union of India & Ors.) assailing the
aforesaid order dated 6.3.2009. The
special appeal was dismissed by order
dated 6.5.2009. It is submitted that the
petitioner had deliberately violated the
earlier order even though the same had
attained finality on the ground that the
appeal was also rejected and as such no
interference may be made in the present
writ petition. This writ petition may be
treated as second writ petition for the
same cause of action.
Shri Krishna Mohan, learned counsel
for the petitioners prays for week's time to
obtain instructions in the matter. Put up
this matter on 27.7.2015 as fresh."
4. When the matter was taken up
subsequently,
the petitioner-appellants
made an application with a prayer to
dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn.
The
application
was
supported
by
affidavit of Shri S.K. Bhattacharya
alleging himself to be the pairokar of the
petitioners. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit,
it was stated that upon inspection of the
record, it transpires that the previous
litigation was done by the second
petitioner personally and deponent is a
pairokar and had no knowledge of the
previous litigation.
5. Learned Single Judge on a perusal
of the record while returning a finding that
the petitioners in both the writ petitions are
the same and affidavit of both the petition
was sworn of Shri S.K. Bhattacharya and,
thus, the second petitioner and the deponent
of the writ petition were very well aware that
an earlier writ petition was filed and was
dismissed and the judgment was also
affirmed by dismissal of the special appeal,
held that not only a 2nd writ petition based
on the same cause of action has been filed
without disclosing the facts pertaining to the
fact of filing and dismissal of the earlier writ
petition and special appeal, a false affidavit
has also been filed in support of the
withdrawal application as well.
6.
Learned Single Judge on a detail
examination of facts and after appreciating
the various case laws dismissed the writ
petition with the heavy cost of Rs.1 lac to be
recovered from the second appellant and
pairokar of the writ petition Shri S.K.
Bhattacharya by the District Magistrate,
Allahabad.
7.
The first submission advanced by
Shri B.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Shri Krishna Mohan for the
appellant is that the learned Single Judge
erred in holding that writ petition was a
second writ petition, inasmuch as the
amount of recovery or the period of dues
even if may be same, the relief claimed in
the earlier Writ Petition No. 11936 of 2009
was entirely different
from the relief
claimed in the subsequent writ petition and
the stage of recovery were also different. It
is further submitted that two writ petitions
challenging the different notice of recovery
cannot be said to be treated as writ petitions
for the same cause of action. Writ Petition
No. 11936 of 2009 was filed by the present
appellants seeking the following reliefs.
"(i) call for record of the case and
issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature
of
certiorari
quashing
the
impugned
warrant
of
arrest
dated
26.11.2008 (contained in Annexure No. 8
to the writ petition) and further recovery
proceedings in pursuance thereof.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
3 All.
M/s Maya Press Pvt. Ltd. Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1443
respondents not to execute the impugned
warrant of arrest.
(iii) issue any other suitable order or
direction as may be deemed to be necessary
under the facts and circumstances of the
case.
(iv) award the costs of the writ
petition to the petitioners."
8.
Annexure 8, quashing of which,
was sought in the said writ petition was a
warrant of arrest issued by Recovery
Officer,
Employees
Provident
Fund
Organisation in respect of failure on the part
of the two petitioners to satisfy the demand
made by certificate Nos. 5065, 8518, 40731
and 45857 dated 20.04.2001, 05.04.2002,
08.04.2004, and 17.04.2006 forwarded by
the Authorised Officer for an amount of
Rs.71,81,297/- towards outstanding against
appellant no. 1-company.
9. Before the learned Single Judge,
liability was admitted and the stand taken
was that sometime be provided to secure
the
liability.
Learned
Single
Judge
disposed of the writ petition vide
judgment and order dated 06.03.2009 by
making following observations.
"The petitioner admits his liability
and only seeks indulgence of the Court to
get some breathing time to clear its
liabilities.
Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case that has been
brought on record, I dispose of the
petition with the following directions:
The
petitioners
will
file
an
application under Section 8-E of the
Employees
Provident
Fund
and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act before the
authorised officer seeking time to make
the payment. This application shall be
filed on or before the 31st Marhc, 2009. If
such an application is filed, the authority
will pass appropriate orders on the said
application expeditiously after affording
an
opportunity
of
hearing
to
the
petitioners. In the meantime, the warrant
of arrest dated 26.11.2008 shall remain in
abeyance
till
the
disposal
of
the
petitioners'
application
provided
the
petitioners deposits a sum of Rs. twenty
lac within four weeks from today.
The writ petition is disposed of.
A certified copy of this order shall be
made available to the petitioners on
payment of usual charges within 24
hours."
10. The order was challenged in
Special Appeal No. 670 of 2009, which
was dismissed by a Division Bench vide
judgment and order dated 06.05.2009 by
passing the following order.
"Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved
by the order dated 6th March, 2009
passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No. 11936 of 2009, has
preferred this Appeal under Rule 5 of
Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court
Rules.
On failure to make payment of the
statutory
dues
under
the
Employees
Provident
Funds
&
Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to
as the 'Act'), the Recovery Officer,
Employees Provident Funds Organisation,
Varanasi issued warrant of arrest dated 26th
November, 2008. The petitioner-appellant
challenged the aforesaid warrant of arrest in
the writ petition which has given rise to the
impugned order. Neither before the learned
Single Judge nor before us the writ
petitioner-appellant has denied its liability
and, in fact, admits the liability.
In fact, before the learned Single
Judge, it was the stand of the appellant
1444
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that he be given some breathing time to
clear its liability. Taking note of the
aforesaid stand, the learned Single Judge
gave liberty to the writ petitionerappellant to make an application under
Section 8(E) of the Act seeking time to
make payment by 31st March, 2009. It
also observed that if such an application is
filed, the Competent Authority will pass
an appropriate order and in the meantime
the
warrant
of
arrest
dated
26th
November, 2008 shall remain in abeyance
till the disposal of the applicant's
application provided it deposits a sum of
Rs. 20 lacs within four weeks from the
date of the said order.
Writ petitioner-appellant instead of
complying the said order has chosen to
file this appeal.
Mr. Ashok Khare appearing on behalf
of the appellant submits that the learned
Single Judge erred in holding that the
application dated 30th April, 2003 was an
application under Section 8(E) of the Act
and according to him, the said application
was also under Section 8(F) of the Act. We
are of the opinion that the aforesaid
submission has no bearing to the facts of the
present case. The petitioner has admitted its
liability and the learned Single Judge gave
indulgence to him to file application seeking
time to make the payment and on condition
of deposit of a sum of Rs. 20 lacs, directed
that the warrant of arrest shall be kept in
abeyance.
The Writ Court is a Court of equity
and in the face of the appellant's own
admission of its liability, any interference
by this Court shall be inexpedient. We do
not find any merit in the appeal and it is
dismissed accordingly."
11. Without disclosing the factum of
filing the earlier Writ Petition No. 11936 of
2009 and its dismissal as well as filing and
dismissal of Special Appeal No. 670 of
2009, the present writ petition was filed.
Incidently the affidavit in both the writ
petition is of the same person, i.e., Shri S.K.
Bhattacharya, who happens to be the
deponent of the affidavit filed in support of
the stay application in the present special
appeal. Admittedly, in the subsequent writ
petition, there was not even a whisper with
respect to dismissal of the first writ petition
and special appeal.
12. A perusal of the two writ petitions,
which are on record of this special appeal as
Annexure to the affidavit filed in support of
the stay application, we find that they are
based on the same cause of action, i.e.,
warrant of arrest, pursuant to the recovery
certificate issued under Section 8-c of the
Act, 1952 for the same amount of recovery,
i.e., Rs.71,81,297/-. The date of warrant of
arrest in the two writ petitions may be
different, but there can be no manner of
doubt that both the writ petitions are based
on the same cause of action and, thus, the
subsequent writ petition being a second writ
petition for the same cause of action, is not
liable to be entertained and has rightly been
dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
13. The argument advanced by the
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
that both the writ petitions are based on
different cause of action, is misconceived
and liable to be rejected.
14. The cause of action in both the
writ petitions is the same, i.e., warrant of
arrest
issued
by
Recovery
Officer,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
for failure on the part of the applicant to
satisfy the recovery certificate issued
under Section 8-c of Act, 1952 towards
outstanding statutory dues under the said
Act.
3 All.
M/s Maya Press Pvt. Ltd. Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1445
15. The next submission advanced
by the learned counsel for the appellants
that
in
view
of
the
subsequent
developments, after dismissal of Writ
Petition No. 11936 of 2009, which was
affirmed in appeal does not prevent the
appellant from challenging the order
passed in proceedings subsequently and
the said writ petition cannot be said to be
a second writ petition for the same relief.
16.

This
argument
is
again
misconceived and has only been advanced
to be rejected.
17. From a perusal of the pleadings of
the writ petition, we do not find details of
any subsequent developments, which might
have taken place after the dismissal of earlier
Writ Petition No. 11936 of 2009 on the basis
of which it could be said that the fresh cause
of action has accrued to the petitioner to file
another writ petition. In the absence of
pleadings in the writ petition in respect of
subsequent developments, the argument has
no legs to stand and cannot be accepted.
18. The issue being well settled that
a second writ petition for the same cause
of action is not liable to be entertained,
we find no fault with the judgment of the
learned Single Judge in dismissing the
writ petition.
19. Coming to the question of
deliberate concealment of fact by the
deponent in the writ petition and making
false averment in the affidavit filed in
support of the withdrawal application,
again on a perusal of the record, we do
not find any fault with the finding of the
learned Single Judge on this aspect.
20. Admittedly, the averments in the
1st Writ Petition No. 11936 of 2009 were
supported by the affidavit of Shri S.K.
Bhattacharya as pairokar and the affidavit
in support of the subsequent writ petition
was also filed by him. Thus, there is no
justification in not disclosing the fact of
filing and dismissal of the earlier writ
petition and special appeal. Again in the
affidavit filed by Shri S.K. Bhattacharya
in support of the withdrawal application,
it was stated as under.
"1. That the deponent is the pairokar
on behalf of the petitioners in this writ
petition. He had no knowledge of the
previous litigations as such he could not
brief the facts to the petitioners counsel
and as such is fully acquainted with the
facts of the case deposed to below.
2. That after getting intimations
before this Hon'ble Court the deponent
inspected the records and came to know
that the previous litigation were done by
the petitioner no. 2 personally, who is
aged about 79 years and has been keeping
ailing health and is unable to move from
Kolkata to Allahabad."
21. The falsity in the statement made
by Shri S.K. Bhattarcharya in the affidavit
filed in support of the withdrawal application
becomes writ large from a perusal of the
aforesaid averments. Even if it is presumed
for the sake of argument that he forgot the
fact of filing and dismissal of the earlier writ
petition and special appeal, but once it is
asserted that the deponent inspected the
record, there was absolutely no reason or
occasion to make the abovequoted averment
in the said affidavit, it is a deliberate attempt
on his part and the allegations made in the
affidavit are patently false.
22. It is crystal clear that the
deponent deliberately did not disclose the
fact of filing and dismissal of the earlier
1446
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
writ petition and special appeal in the
subsequent writ petition and when this
fact came to the notice of the learned
Single Judge, on an objection being raised
by the respondents, he again made totally
false allegations in the affidavit filed in
support of the application to dismiss the
writ petition as withdrawn. Hence, we
find no flaw in the judgment of the
learned Single Judge holding that the
appellant and the deponent misused the
process of this Court, firstly in order to
procure an order by concealing material
facts in the writ petition and subsequently
filing a false affidavit to save himself
from the wreath of this Court.
23. Learned Single Judge has relied
upon various pronouncements of the
Hon'ble Apex Court laying down that if a
litigant is found guilty of concealment of
material facts or making an attempt to
pollute the pure stream of justice, the
Court not only has the right but a duty to
deny relief to such a person. A litigant,
who
seeks
shelter
of
falsehood,
misrepresentation and suppression of facts
in invoking the extraordinary equitable
jurisdiction of this Court conferred by
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is
not liable for any indulgence.
24. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya
Rajakula
Vamsathu
Madalaya
Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam, (2012)
6 SCC 430 held as under:-
"43.2. Every litigant is expected to
state truth before the law court whether it
is pleadings, affidavits or evidence.
Dishonest and unscrupulous litigants have
no place in law courts.
43.3. The ultimate object of the
judicial proceedings is to discern the truth
and do justice. It is imperative that
pleadings and all other presentations
before the court should be truthful.
43.4. Once the court discovers
falsehood,
concealment,
distortion,
obstruction or confusion in pleadings and
documents, the court should in addition to
full restitution impose appropriate costs.
The court must ensure that there is no
incentive for wrongdoer in the temple of
justice. Truth is the foundation of justice
and it has to be the common endeavour of
all to uphold the truth and no one should
be permitted to pollute the stream of
justice.
43.5. It is the bounden obligation of
the court to neutralise any unjust and/or
undeserved benefit or advantage obtained
by abusing the judicial process."
25. Again in the case of Dalip Singh
v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 2 SCC
114, Hon'ble Apex Court noticed that an
altogether
new
creed
of
dishonest
litigants, have flooded the Court. The
quest for personal gain has become so
intense that those involved in litigation do
not hesitate to seek shelter of falsehood,
misrepresentation and suppression of facts
in the course of court proceedings.
26. Supreme Court in the case of V.
Chandrashekaran
&
Anr.
vs.
Administrative Officer & Ors., [(2012) 12
SCC 133] held that a petition or affidavit
containing
misleading
or
inaccurate
statement amounts to abuse of process of
Court, a litigant cannot take inconsistent
positions. In paragraph 45 of the report,
Hon'ble Apex Court held as under.
"45.
The judicial process cannot
become an instrument of oppression or
abuse, or a means in the process of the court
to subvert justice, for the reason that the
3 All.
Om Prakash Chaubey Vs. D.I.O.S. Varanasi & Ors.
1447
court exercises its jurisdiction, only in
furtherance of justice. The interests of
justice and public interest coalesce, and
therefore, they are very often one and the
same. A petition or an affidavit containing a
misleading and/or an inaccurate statement,
only to achieve an ulterior purpose, amounts
to an abuse of process of the court."
27. For the aforesaid facts and
discussions, we do not find any good
ground to interfere with the order of the
learned Single Judge dismissing the writ
petition of the petitioner-appellants and
imposing cost on both of them and the
same is hereby affirmed.
28. The special appeal, accordingly,
stands dismissed.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.
Special Appeal Defective No. 784 of 2015
Om Prakash Chaubey
..Appellant
Versus
D.I.O.S. Varanasi & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants:
Shankar Bhagwan Singh, Raj Nath Pandey
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution of India-Art.-226-Dismissal of
Writ Petition-as infructuous-on statement
made by Counsel-recall by another Counselrejection saying not maintainable-held-not
proper-order impugned being terminationcan not be infectious-application by another
counsel-maintainable.
Held: Para-7
However, even if that be so, we are of
the view that the ends of justice would
require that the order of dismissal of the
writ petition as infructuous by efflux of
time should be recalled. The appellant
has challenged an order of termination.
The cause of the appellant against the
order of termination continues to survive
and has not been rendered infructuous
by lapse of time.
Case Law discussed:
(2015) 7 SCC 373
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.)
1. The appellant filed a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution
seeking to challenge an order dated 18 May
1993 passed by the Manager of the Harihar
Mahadev Inter
College, Deochandpur,
Varanasi by which his services were
terminated. The appellant also sought a
mandamus restraining interference in the
discharge of his duty as Assistant Teacher
in the L.T. Grade. The petition came up for
hearing before the learned Single Judge on
1 November 2010 and the following order
was passed:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that this writ petition has become
infructuous by efflux of time.
It is accordingly dismissed."
2. The appellant moved a recall
application stating that he had no
knowledge of the order dated 1 November
2010 since despite enquiry his previous
counsel had not furnished a satisfactory
response and that it was only ten days
prior thereto when he was informed from
the office of the District Inspector of
Schools, Varanasi that the petition had
been dismissed on 1 November 2010. It