Facts
The applicant, Rajakumar B.L., through his counsel, filed MA No. 170/91/2026 seeking to recall the Order dated 05.02.2026, which had dismissed his Original Application (O.A. No. 613/2024) for default/non-prosecution.
Source reference: p.2, para. 1The applicant's counsel claimed that he sought an adjournment due to personal inconvenience and believed it was granted, leaving the video conference.
Source reference: p.2, para. 1.1, 1.2He was surprised to find the case dismissed later that day.
Source reference: p.2, para. 1.1, 1.2The counsel also argued that the learned single member, an Administrative Member, brushed aside his objection regarding the competency of a single Administrative Member to hear the case, citing a High Court of Karnataka order.
Source reference: p.2, para. 1.3He further contended that a communication from the Chairman, Principal Bench, dated 04.12.2025, which permitted a single Administrative Member to hear original applications, was not disclosed to him, and he was kept in the dark about its contents.
Source reference: p.3, para. 1.5The counsel for the respondent, however, confirmed that the previous order was passed in open court, and he was present throughout the proceedings.
Source reference: p.4, para. 2The Tribunal's Registry confirmed that the Chairman, CAT's order dated 04.12.2025, was put on the notice board and website on 09.02.2026, ten days before this MA was filed, contradicting the applicant's counsel's claim of non-disclosure.
Source reference: p.6, para. 5, 6Issues
Whether the Order dated 05.02.2026 dismissing O.A. No. 613/2024 for default/non-prosecution should be recalled on the grounds that the applicant's counsel believed an adjournment was granted and was unaware of the proceedings after leaving the video conference?
Source reference: p.2, para. 1.1, 1.2Whether the applicant's counsel's claims regarding non-disclosure of the Chairman, CAT's communication dated 04.12.2025 are factually correct and warrant recalling the order?
Source reference: p.3, para. 1.5, p.6, para. 5Whether the applicant's counsel engaged in professional misconduct by making false statements and attempting to mislead the Court?
Source reference: p.8, para. 8, p.10, para. 25, 27Law Applied
The court primarily applied Section 22(3)F of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, which governs the power to recall orders in certain circumstances.
Source reference: p.2, para. 1It also relied on the principle established in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. (2002 AIR-SCW 4939), which states that court records of events during a hearing are conclusive, and any party believing them to be incorrectly recorded must bring it to the judge's attention while the matter is fresh.
Source reference: p.6, para. 7Furthermore, the court considered the principles from Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and others (2010) 2 SCC 114 and K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others (2008) 12 SCC 481, emphasizing that litigants must approach the court with clean hands, make full disclosure of material facts, and avoid concealing or suppressing information.
Source reference: p.7-8, para. 8(a); p.9-10, para. 8(b)The principles from Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors v. Nirmala Devi and Ors (2011) 8 SCC 249 regarding frivolous litigation, false pleas, and the imposition of costs for professional misconduct were also considered.
Source reference: p.11-12, para. 8(c)Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the applicant's counsel failed to provide evidence substantiating his claim that an adjournment was granted or that the order dated 05.02.2026 was passed in his absence.
Source reference: p.6, para. 4The respondent's counsel confirmed his presence throughout the proceedings where the order was passed.
Source reference: p.4, para. 2The court referenced its own recorded facts from 05.02.2026, which indicated the applicant's counsel refused to argue the case despite being apprised of the Chairman's directive on the single member's competency, leading to the dismissal for non-prosecution.
Source reference: p.4-5, para. 3Applying the principle from Bhavnagar University, the court deemed its own records conclusive.
Source reference: p.6, para. 7The applicant's counsel's assertion that he was unaware of the Chairman's communication dated 04.12.2025 was contradicted by the Registry, which confirmed its public availability on the notice board and website since 09.02.2026, well before the MA was filed on 19.02.2026.
Source reference: p.6, para. 5, 6The Tribunal viewed the counsel's conduct as an attempt to mislead the court and suppress material facts, amounting to professional misconduct, drawing parallels with the Supreme Court's observations in Dalip Singh, K.D. Sharma, and Ramrameshwari Devi regarding litigants who pollute the stream of justice and engage in frivolous litigation.
Source reference: p.6, para. 6; p.7-12, para. 8Holding
The Miscellaneous Application was dismissed.
The court imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the learned Counsel of the applicant for professional misconduct, wasting the court's time, and attempting to mislead the court, to be deposited with the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within 15 working days.
Source reference: p.12, para. 10; p.13, para. 11(b)Original Court PDF
Rajakumar B.L. v. Union of India [Miscellaneous Application No. 170/00091/2026 in Original Application No. 170/000613/2024]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in