Allahabad HC Rejects Recall Plea as No Ground Was Made Out

Parmarth Steel And Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and Others (Allahabad High Court)

The Allahabad High Court considered three recall applications filed in relation to Writ Tax Nos. 874 of 2010, 875 of 2010, and 13 of 2014, seeking recall of its detailed judgment and order dated 28.03.2022. The petitioners in the first two writ petitions were private companies, while the petitioner in the third writ petition was stated to be a proprietory concern.

As all three recall applications and the supporting affidavits were identical, the Court, with the consent of the parties, examined the affidavit filed in support of Recall Application No. 2 of 2022 in Writ Tax No. 874 of 2010.

The Court noted that the affidavit had been sworn by a person who stated that he was employed in a private job and was acting as the pairocar of the petitioner. The Court further observed that the deponent was not an employee of the petitioner.

The affidavit stated that the non-appearance of the petitioner’s counsel was bona fide and not deliberate. It also asserted that the matter had merit and requested recall of the order dated 28.03.2022 so that the case could be heard on merits, contending that otherwise the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury.

The High Court examined its earlier judgment dated 28.03.2022 and found that it was a detailed judgment rendered on merits. It held that no ground had been made out for recalling the judgment.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that all three recall applications were wholly misconceived and rejected Recall Application No. 2 of 2022 in Writ Tax No. 874 of 2010, Recall Application No. 2 of 2022 in Writ Tax No. 875 of 2010, and Recall Application No. 1 of 2022 in Writ Tax No. 13 of 2014.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

1. Heard Shri Pradeep Agrawal alongwith Shri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant and Shri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents on the following recall applications.

Civil Misc. Recall Application No.2 of 2022 in Writ Tax No.874 of 2010

with

Civil Misc. Recall Application No.2 of 2022 in Writ Tax No.875 of 2010

with

Civil Misc. Recall Application No.1 of 2022 in Writ Tax No.13 of 2014

2. Petitioner of Writ-Tax No.874 of 2010 and Writ-Tax No.875 of 2010 is a private company and petitioner of Writ-Tax No.13 of 2014 is stated to be a proprietory concern. In all these three writ petitions, similar recall applications supported by affidavit of one and the same person has been filed for recall of the detailed judgment and order dated 28.03.2022.

3. Since all the three recall applications and accompanying affidavits are similar, therefore, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the affidavit accompanying the Recall Application No.2 of 2022 in Writ-Tax No.874 of 2010 is being considered.

4. The affidavit accompanying the recall application has been filed stating that the deponent is doing a private job and is pairocar of the applicant/petitioner. The deponent of the affidavit is not even an employee of the applicant/petitioner.

5. Apart from above, in the affidavit accompanying the recall application, it has been stated in paragraph 6, as under:-

“6. That the non-appearance of the Counsel for the Applicant is bonafide and not deliberate. The matter is good on merits and thus the order dated 28.03.2022 may kindly be recalled and matter may be heard on merits, in the interest of justice; otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.”

6. We have perused our judgment and order dated 28.03.2022 and we find that it is a detailed judgment on merits. No ground for recall has been made out.

7. The Recall Application No.2 of 2022 in Writ-Tax No.874 of 2010, Recall Application No.2 of 2022 in Writ-Tax No.875 of 2010 and Recall Application No.1 of 2022 in Writ-Tax No.13 of 2014, are totally misconceived and are hereby rejected.