Safiya Malik

The Gujarat High Court has issued a cautionary warning to the legal representatives involved in a contempt petition after it was discovered that the incorrect government department was named as a party in the case. The court recorded that this error led to confusion in the implementation of a previous judicial directive, despite the applicants having already received the benefit of an increment. The court permitted the withdrawal of the petition after the advocates tendered an apology and assured that similar errors would not recur.

The case originated from contempt proceedings initiated for the alleged non-compliance with an order issued by a single judge in a writ petition. The applicants, who were government employees, sought enforcement of an order granting them the benefit of one increment. During the course of the proceedings, the court observed that the applicants’ department, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd., had not been made a party to the case. Instead, the Narmada, Water Resources, Water Supply, and Kalpasar Department had been incorrectly named as a respondent.

The petitioners were represented by their legal counsel, who pointed out the error, and the advocates representing the state also acknowledged the mistake. The court recorded that the advocates had tendered an apology and submitted that the applicants should not suffer due to this procedural oversight.

The court noted that errors of this nature had occurred in other cases where group petitions were filed involving multiple employees from different departments. It observed that, in several instances, the relevant facts were not adequately presented before the single judge at the time of passing the order. The court remarked: "Time and again, it is noticed by us that the orders are obtained in a group of petitions, where numerous employees are made parties who also belong to different departments and correct facts are not pointed out before the learned Single Judges. This is one such matter."

The court also recorded that while a chart had been annexed in the original writ petition listing the petitioners, the document was incomplete and failed to specify the exact department under which each applicant was employed.

The court took note of the advocates' submission that the applicants had already been granted the benefit of one increment, rendering further contempt proceedings unnecessary. The court acknowledged that a procedural lapse had occurred, leading to misrepresentation in the contempt petition.

The court observed: "Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is also submitted by the learned AGPs that the applicants are already extended the benefit of one increment. When we were inclined to impose exemplary cost for misleading the learned Single Judge and this Court, learned advocate Mr. Goutam as well as the learned AGPs have tendered an apology and have assured that such things will not be repeated again."

The court observed that the error resulted from a lack of due diligence and that such procedural mistakes, if repeated, could lead to serious consequences. It also cautioned that the failure of legal representatives to provide accurate details about the applicants and the respondent departments before a court of law could create unnecessary litigation.

The Gujarat High Court issued the following directives:

1. Warning to Advocates – The court warned the legal representatives, including the applicants’ counsel and the state’s representatives, to exercise caution while filing group petitions. It stated that in cases involving multiple employees from different departments, the correct facts must be provided in the pleadings.

2. Case Disposal as Withdrawn – The court allowed the petitioners to withdraw the contempt application in light of the submission that the applicants had already received the benefit of an increment. The order stated: "Request is acceded to. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of as withdrawn with a warning to the learned advocate Mr. Goutam as well as learned AGPs to remain careful as and when a number of petitions are filed, and the correct facts of each of the petitioners shall be tendered in such petitions."

3. Clarification on Future Filings – The court stated that legal representatives must ensure that each petitioner’s employment details, along with the correct respondent department, are clearly stated in their filings to avoid confusion and unnecessary judicial intervention.

Case Title: Gemarbhai Dalabhai Desai & Ors. v. S.K. Patel, Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Mechanical & Ors.
Case Number: R/Misc. Civil Application (For Contempt) No. 748 of 2024
Bench: Justice A. S. Supehia, Justice Gita Gopi

[Read/Download order]