On my prayer to deal with the Constitutional issue, J. Mahesh Grover declared in open court, "I will crush your all Constitutional Rights"
THE FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE OF A LAWYER
Rumor is that this incident might be video-recorded by some Journalist
Before the memory fades it is very important to jot down the yesterday's courtroom incident; expressing the shocking state of affairs. My Review Application (RA-LP-24-2017) appeared before the Division Bench of J. Mahesh Grover and J Shekhar Dhawan. (The Review Application is after the narration of the incident) Lt. Col. Sarvadaman Oberoi, aged about 70 years, the resident of Gurugram was also present in the courtroom for mentioning of his Application to become party in my case.
When the Sr. No. 120 of my case was called I rose to the address the Court and said, "This is the Review Application..." before I could speak further J. Mahesh Grover pronounced, "DISMISSED" Then, I said, "But I have not even started my argument" Upon this, J. Mahesh Grover said, "We've already decided to dismiss it" In between, Lt. Col. Sarvadaman Oberoi rose and said that he also wants to become party in the case as the matter involves the lives of numerous citizens. J Mahesh Grover, "We wont allow any other person to interfere in this matter" Then the helpless old aged citizen Lt. Col. Sarvadaman Oberoi said, "I have a right to make prayer and you may dismiss my prayer" Then J Mahesh Grover pronounced, "DISMISSED"
Then I rose and said, "The matter has been dismissed without hearing and I need to heard before dismissal. I beg for opportunity of hearing. What I am asking, I'm asking only an opportunity of hearing" Then J. Mahesh Grover said, "OK Argue" and he closed his eyes and by stretching his chair backward pretended to sleep while relaxing his head towards courtroom roof. I wanted to say that its Judicial Misconduct to sleep in courtroom during hearing. But I restrained myself and started my argument. But again J. Mahesh Grover came out of his pretending or self-imposed deep slumber and said, "Mr. Rapria argue at your own peril, if you argue the cost may go up to more than One Lakh rupees" I was perplexed and felt provoked at this threat, but I controlled myself as the idea was not get relief; but to awake the other lawyers present in the courtroom. I said, "If the cost is the price of argument then I am ready to bear any cost" When I started addressing arguments J. Mahesh Grover again went into Sleep Mode while closing his eyes and relaxing his neck towards courtroom roof.
I said, "my 1st argument is; my Application under Article 134-A of the Constitution; seeking Certificate to the effect that the matter involves substantial questions of law involving interpretation of the Constitution and the same needs to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court" Upon this, J. Mahesh Grover again came out of his self-imposed slumber and said, "You have a right to file SLP, you dont need our certificate for that" I replied, "My argument is not that I must be granted Certificate, rather my argument is that my Application under Article 134-A needs to be disposed off; either this way or that way. The language of the Article 134-A says that the HC shall forthwith dispose of the Application and this is my Constitutional Right" Then, Mr. Mahesh Grover was completely out of his pretending sleep and was furious and declared, "I will crush your all Constitutional Rights in this case. This case requires it and we'll do it suitably" I could manage to say only that, "Thats yourlordship's prerogative" I wanted to reply that 'You have taken the oath of Constitution and while sitting on this pious chair you are behaving like a goon threatening to crush the Constitutional Rights of an Advocate and clients', but I restrained myself; fearing Contempt of Court case. Further, I wanted to say that you can openly use such language in the open court because the Officers of this Court, i.e., Advocates present in courtroom dont have courage to raise voice against the misbehavior with a colleague. But I restrained myself to avoid controversy with the college the 'Officers of the Court' who are not subordinates of the bench (Judge)
Then I said, "My 2nd argument is that the Substantial Questions of Law involving interpretation of the Constitution; pleaded at Page No. 4 remain adjudicated and have not been touched at all in the order under review"
I continued, "And, my 3rd argument is that this Court has no jurisdiction to impose the cost on on an Advocate. This power lies only with the Bar Council on receipt of complaint of professional negligence. This court can impose cost only for Contempt of Court and the present one is not the case of Contempt of Court." Then raising my hands towards the Advocates in the Courtroom I said, "If Courts start imposing costs on the Advocates appearing in the case, no lawyer present here would be able to argue effectively for the benefit of his clients"
In this way I concluded my arguments and came out of the court and only person appreciating me out was Col. Sarvdaman Oberoi, who wanted to jot down the incident in the form of Affidavit to be given to Chief Justice, but I replied, "You can do it in your individual capacity but I wont involve in such exercise; as the same is futile one, because Chief Justice is not empowered to do anything in the matter." Ironical situation is that even if a Judge accept bribe in open court he can not be removed from office, except the impeachment process, which is next to impossible. Moreover, such judicial misconduct can be tackled only with the help of aware and courageous Advocates, who are the equal Officers of the Court and not subordinates of the Judges.
I have applied for the certified copy of the order to know the reasoning given by the Division Bench for dismissing Review Application, so far, which has not been made available on the website of the High Court. After getting copy I will decide the future course of action. But I will certainly take into confidence the Bar Councils/Bar Association and like minded Advocates and seek their support.
I have applied for the certified copy of the order to know the reasoning given by the Division Bench for dismissing Review Application, so far, which has not been made available on the website of the High Court. After getting copy I will decide the future course of action. But I will certainly take into confidence the Bar Councils/Bar Association and like minded Advocates and seek their support.
REVIEW APPLICATION UNDER CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT WAS AS BELOW:
"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RA-LP-24-2017
In L.P.A. No. 740 of 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHARMILA KAUSHIK AND ANOTHER ........Petitioners
//VERSUS//
PARAS BUILDTECH INDIA PVT. LTD. & OTHERS ..Respondents
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 CPC; SEEKING REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED: 15.5.2017 IN L.P.A. NO. 740 OF 2017.
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the Applicants had filed the Letter Patent AppealNo. 740 of 2017;under clause X of the Letters Patent Appeal Act against the order dated 05.05.2017 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Rawal in CM No. 6632-6633 of 2017 in CWP No. 8408 of 2017 [Application under sub-article (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India].
2. That the brief factual matrix culminating into the filing of the L.P.A.-740 of 2017 are as follows:-
Ø ‘PARAS BUILDTECH INDIA PVT. LTD. & OTHERS’ (the builder and developer) by filing CWP-8408-2017 had approached this Hon’ble Court seeking quashing of the notice and consequent proceedings of the State; for demarcation/identification of land. Its worth emphasising that through the impugned notice/proceedings the State had not threatened the builder/developer in any manner to cause any harm; what to talk about irreparable harm. Simply, the State had initiated the process of demarcation of land.
Ø The above said writ petition filed by the builder/developer was fixed for 25.04.17 for initial hearing, however, Hon’ble Mr. J. M.M.S. Bedi was pleased to pass the order which reads:
“Present: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
****
Be listed before another Bench after obtaining necessary orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on 27.04.2017.”
Ø The matter was listed before Justice Amit Rawal, who, vide interim order dated: 27.04.2017, without hearing the State, stayed the demarcation proceedings. The interim order reads:
“Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amandeep Singh Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
* * *
Inter alia contends that in pursuance to the direction given by the Green Tribunal, demarcation of land in dispute was conducted and as per the report dated 08.04.2016 (Annexure P-14), it was found that there is an encroachment by the petitioner on an area of 195 square yards (163.045 sq.mtr.) by building a ramp. The petitioner is stated to have made a representation for adjustment of the area by giving an alternative area vide letter dated 10.11.2016 (Annexure P-19) and that was being considered and recommended yet on the basis of the complaint, the Municipal Corporation called upon the petitioner, vide Annexure P-23 for fresh demarcation. The petitioner has already submitted a representation to that effect for conducting the demarcation on 13.04.2017 but somehow the demarcation has not been done and thus, urges this Court for quashing the impugned order, much less issuance of direction to the authorities for implementation of the report dated 20.04.2016 (Annexure P-17).
Notice of motion for 03.08.2017.
In the meanwhile, further proceedings in pursuance to notices dated 30.03.2017 (Annexure P-21) and 13.04.2017 (Annexure P-23) are ordered to be kept in abeyance.”
Ø The Applicants, i.e., the private Respondent No.7 and 8, came to know about the ex-parte stay order dated 27.04.2017 through media coverage which reads:
“The National Green Tribunal (NGT) on Friday asked private developer to prove it has not encroached upon a natural drain in Gwalpahari village. This drain, known as kost nullah, further join the Badsahpur drain at Ghata village. The Green Court's direction to Paras Buildtech Limited came a day after the realtor managed to obtain a stay from the Punjab & Haryana High Court on a notice issued by NCG for conducting a fresh demarcation of the kost nullah.”
(i) The Applicants (Respondent No.7 and 8), from their own sources including media sources became aware of the fact the Builder/Developer had managed to obtain the ex-party stay by not only by concealment of the crucial and relevant facts from this Hon’ble Court, but also by making misleading and wrong statement. Therefore, the Applicants being two of uncounted ultimate victims of the encroachment of the public land by the builder/developer; filed Application under Sub-Article 3 of the Article 226 of the Constitution for Vacation of Stay, by fulfilling the constitutional requisite condition of ‘supplying the a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party’. In the Application for Vacation of Stay, supported with statement on oath in the way of Affidavit, the Applicants categorically pleaded that: -
“Petitioners (Builder/Developer) have managed the interim order by concealment of crucial of relevant fact that the Hon'ble Green Tribunal is already seized with the matter and issued notice on 28.03.2017.Any stay which shall cause delay in the proceedings before the expert body, Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, next fixed for 03.07.17….re-demarcation awaited by the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal in this very matter for further proceeding on 03.07.17 would be stopped in view of the continuing stay by this Hon’ble High Court effective till 03.08.17, can never be said to be fully in the interests of justice.” “The Petitioners have merely mentioned that the encroached area is only 195 Sq.Yds., whereas the actual encroached area is 6,969.113 Sq.Yds. which is clear from the registered demarcation plan bearing Tehsildar Sohana Registration No. 2532, Dated: 07.05.2015”
Ø The Application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution was fixed for hearing on 05.05.2017. The Counsel for the builder/developer; despite receiving advance copy of the Application for Vacation of Stay, had chosen not to oppose the Applicants’ prayer for vacation of stay. However, Justice Amit Rawal vide order dated: 05.05.2017 refused to allow placing on record the Application under sub-article-3 of the Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed the same only on the ground that the Applicants had failed the written statement in the writ petition.
3. That aggrieved with the decision of the Ld. Single Judge the Applicants filed the LPA No.740-2017. And, this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 15.5.2017 dismissed the aforesaid L.P.A., with the cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be recovered from the Advocate representing the Appellants.
4. That Order Dated: 15.5.2017 in L.P.A. No. 740 of 2017 suffers from the errors of law apparent on the face of the record, as the specific substantial questions of law of public importance categorically pleaded in the LPA appears to have been inadvertently overlooked by this Honourable Court. Further, this Hon’ble Court has acted beyond its jurisdiction while imposing cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the Advocate for the Petitioners, that’s also without issuing any Show Cause Notice to the Advocate. The errors of law apparent on the face of the record, violation of natural justice and judicial overreachis self-explanatory on the following counts: -
I. BECAUSEthe Judgment in LPA has not at all dealt with the Substantial Questions of Law of public importance and interpretation of the Constitution; pleaded in the Para No.2(ii) of the L.P.A. at Page No. 4 of the Paper Book, which reads:
A. What object the Legislature did seek to achieve by making it mandatory to serve the advance copy of theApplication under Sub-article 3 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
B. Whether the insistence on the written statement as a precondition for filing of Application under Sub-article 3 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will defeat the object sought to be achieved by theConstitution 44 Amendment Act, 1978?
C. Whether, the filing of written statement is prerequisite for filing the Application under Sub-article 3 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India; even if there is the error apparent on the face of the interim order?
D. What object the Legislature did seek to achieve by making it mandatory to serve the advance copy of theApplication under Sub-article 3 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
E. Whether the Application under Sub-Article 3 of the Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be dismissed without seeking reply of the party in whose favour the interim order had been made?
Whereas, the aforesaid substantial questions of law involving interpretation of the Constitution of India go to the root of the matter and without touching or adjudicating the aforesaid questions of law having wide ramification for the lives of lakhs and lakhs citizens; straightaway dismissal in limine of the LPA with the cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be recovered from the Advocates, is a miscarriage of justice and would discourage an Advocate to raise valid argument without fear of bench.
II. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to impose cost of Rs. 50,000/-(Fifty Thousand) on the Advocate for the Applicants, until and unless an Advocate is guilty of Contempt of Court after being heard upon notice. Moreover, the order imposing costs suffering errors apparent on its face baffles the common human prudence as to why the cost has been imposed and that’s also without issuing any Show Cause Notice. The only plausible reason for imposing cost on the Advocates appears to be that the counsel had not placed on record the copy of the writ petition. But, it may be appreciated that an Advocate has to be dependent on the documents provided by the clients and his instructions. In this regard, it may be relevant and important to mention here that the Advocate for the Applicants had written a letter to them and had sought specific instructions on the issue in hand, which reads:
“As per your instructions I had filed the LPA vide Diary No. 1765490, against the Order Dated: 05.05.2017 passed by Hon’ble Justice Mr. Amit Rawal in CM-6632-6633-2017 in CWP No.8408 Of 2017.
Whereas the HC Registry before registration of L.P.A. has raised certain objections. Apart from some inadvertent typographical/clerical errors, one objection concerning you is that, “Complete copy of CWP should be attached with this LPA.” You may recall that before filing of the L.P.A. I had apprised you that the HC Registry would demand the copy of the CWP. However, you both telephonically told me that the copy of the ‘Paper Book’ had not been received and the time consumed in obtaining the copy of ‘Paper Book’ would further delay the matter and the builder would be successful in getting stayed the proceedings of identification of land encroached by the builder, i.e., ‘Paras Buildtech India Pvt Ltd’, which will put the lives of thousands of persons at risk.
Be that as it may, if you want I can try to seek the copy of the ‘Paper Book’ from H.C. Registry; by applying the certified copy of the same. Though, you have telephonically expressed your inability to provide the copy of the CWP-8409-2017, but it would be very difficult to persuade the HC Registry to register the LPA without copy of the CWP.” The true copy of the Advocate’s letter is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-1.
And, the Applicants’ reply to the aforesaid letter expresses their helplessness and goes on to show how our system makes the ordinary citizens pitiful creatures; in the face of powerful builder. The verbatim letter is reproduced below to appreciate the anguish of ordinary citizens, which reads:
“(1) We are in receipt of your letter dated: 09.05.2017 in reference to the LPA filed vide Diary No. 1765490, against the Order Dated 05.05.2017 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Rawal in CM-6632-6633-2017 in CWP No.8408 of 2017.
(2) We’re surprised and shocked at unprecedented developments in our case. It appears that you’re too much afraid of the Senior Advocate Akshay Bhan son of former Supreme Court Judge J. Ashok Bhan (Retd.) and Advocate Alok Mittal (son of J. Ajay Kumar Mittal, presently serving High Court Judge), who are representing the powerful Builder and that’s why you appear very cautious while dealing with our case.
(3) We feel sorry to make the aforesaid comment, but we’re tormented by the whole lax process and we spending our hard earned money purely on the public cause, related to the lives and safety of thousands of persons. Therefore, let us narrate the whole gamut of the forthcoming peculiar facts and circumstances to fully contextualize our above comment.
(4) We’re taking pains, purely from own pocket, to oppose the encroachment of natural drains and the land connected with the natural drains because we along with other thousand residents are victims of the floods due to the encroachments of the natural drains by the builders. You will be shocked to find that during the monsoon season the water level goes more than 5-6 feet and situation for us; especially for the old aged persons and children; becomes worse as during medical emergencies and other emergencies, they can be sent to Hospital only by airlifting.
(5) So in the aforesaid dangerous situation we have been raising the issue of encroachment of public land/natural nallas/drains before multiple concerned authorities including Haryana Govt., National Green Tribunal (NGT) etc.
(6) We came to know that writ petition 8408-2017 was filed by builder seeking stay of the ‘identification/demarcation of land’ by Advocate Alok Mittal (the son of serving High Court of Punjab and Haryana High Court Judge J. Ajay Kumar Mittal) appeared for builder on 25.04.17 for initial hearing. However, J. MMS Bedi due to unknown reasons refused to hear the matter and placed the matter before Hon’ble Chief Justice. I am consciously using the word ‘unknown reasons’, because while reading the order dated 25.4.17 I can not find any reason for not hearing the matter, as the order only reads: “Be listed before another Bench after obtaining necessary orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on 27.04.2017.”
(7) Then the matter was fixed before J. Amit Rawal who through an order dated27.04.2017 stayed the ‘proceeding of demarcation of land’ after giving unilateral hearing Senior Advocate Akshay Bhan; the son of Supreme Court Judge J. Ashok Bhan (Retd.) And, this stay was granted even without hearing the State Counsel who was present in the court, what to talk about hearing the poor affected citizens like me. We came to know about the ex-parte stay order dated 27.04.2017 through media coverage of the stay granted by High Court. I am shocked to find such stay; because the Govt. Authority did not even whisper that the Paras Buildtech had encroached the land or it wanted to demolish the building constructed by it. The Govt. Authority just wanted to demarcate/identify the land. We tried our best to obtain the copy of the writ petition, but we were given to understand by the High Court officials that the Process Fee had not been deposited by the Petitioners and the petition will be received by us through court process after the deposit of process fee by the Petitioner.
(8) Then we approached you and apprised you about the emergent situation created by the approaching monsoon season and you advised us to file petition under Article 226(3) of Constitution. Accordingly, on 02.05.2017, after filing of the Application for Vacation of Stay you told me that as per the HC Rules/practice will come up for hearing on 04.05.2017. On 04.05.2017 we reached High Court for hearing of the case; but we were shocked to find that our case had not been listed. You told us that ‘in routine the matter is listed after the gap of one day’. Then when we asked you to accompany us to the Registrar General over this goof-up, you refused to accompany us, we had to approach to the Registrar General at our own and then seek an enquiry into the matter. And, a news story was published in media, one story in ‘Times of India, dated: 05.05.2017 reads:
“Gwalpahari plea not listed, registrar seeks probe”
“A plea in the Punjab and Haryana high court seeking to vacate the ex-parte stay granted to Paras Buildtech on fresh demarcation of a natural drain inGwalpahari by MCG could not be heard onThursday, as the matter was not listed.
After the petitioners complained of wrongdoing on the part of officials in the court registry, the Haryana registrar general Gurvinder Singh Gill directed his staff to find out why the matter was not listed, terming it "suspicious".
"Application of vacation of ex-parte stay has the highest priority in courts. As per the high court rules, it is mandatory that the urgent petition filed by us on May 2 has to be listed for hearing on May 4," said petitioners Sharmila Kaushik and Vaishali Rana. However, this was not done and it seems to be the work of people who did not want the case to be heard on Thursday," added petitioners Sharmila Kaushik and Vaishali Rana. The matter will now be heard on Friday.
The petitioners, who are residents of Valley View Estate in Gwalpahari, where the private builder is allegedly constructing a building right on the Kost nullah, have sought the stay to be vacated on two grounds.
"The private builder has sought the stay on the ground that they will incur irreparable loss if the MCG demolishes its project, even though MCG has only issued a notice to conduct a fresh demarcation and has nowhere used the word demolition and that Paras has not revealed to the high court that the same matter is being heard by the technically competent National Green Tribunal in Delhi."
Paras Buildtech, though, claimed that it has informed the high court about the case being heard by the National Green Tribunal.”
(9) This is how the matter was listed for arguments on 05.05.2017. And, we feel that the matter was listed on 05.05.2017 only because of our meeting with Registrar General coupled with media reporting, otherwise the matter could be further delayed, which apparently appears to be actuated by the influence of the powerful builder supported by heavyweight Advocates.
(10) Then another attack on the public cause came when our Application for Vacation of Stay was dismissed by J. Amit Rawal, that’s also without any appearance of advocates from the side of Petitioners, who did not even care to come to Court and you remained silent spectator of this injustice perpetuated at the hands of vested interests. Could you not apprise J. Amit Rawal that the Builder’s Counsel had concealed the fact that same issue in which he had granted stay was pending before the Green Tribunal, which is expert body? Could you not apprise J. Amit Rawal that the encroached area is much higher than the admitted one?
(11) And, now, we receive a letter from you indicating that you are unable to register our LPA without copy of the writ petition, which we have not received so far; through court process. Prior to appoint you we had made several rounds of the HC Registry seeking copy of the writ petition. But, the vested interests are so powerful that, the same copy of writ petition which was openly accessible to the media and other persons, was denied to us on the ground that the process fee had not be deposited by the Counsel for Petitioner. Now, if you seek the certified copy of the writ petition at this stage, it will further delay the matter as the Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, vide letter No. Tehsildar/MCG/2017/330, Dated: 08.05.2017 has fixed the measurement of the area in issue, i.e., Khasara No. 86, GairMumkinNala, earlier fixed for 02.05.2017 has now been fixed for 12.05.2017. Moreover, when due to lack of complete set of documents we are unable to file the written statement at this stage, what is the relevance of the copy of the writ petition? Are the malpractices and fraud played with the High Court not apparent on the face of the order dated 27.04.2017 of J. Amit Rawal? Has J Amit Rawal decided our Application for Vacation of Stay on merit? Has Advocate for the Petitioners not accepted that the public land has been encroached?, Though encroached area is much higher than accepted by builder. These glaring malapractices and fraud played upon the court is clear even to the layman. We are unable to understand how the copy of the writ petition will put more light on the fraud played upon with the High Court? Moreover, the copy of the writ petition and all other documents are available in the file of CWP-8408-2017 is available in the same High Court, which can be summoned by the Hon’ble Court, in case some rule requires that in LPA copy of CWP is essential why could not the registry attach the file of CWP with the file of LPA, when we had told the registry on 04.05.17 itself that copy of CWP is not yet given to us by petitioner. Please appreciate that any delay in the measurement of the land will jeopardise the life and safety of the thousands of inhabitants in the area, during the approaching monsoon season, as even last year there was as much as about 6 feet water on the road. Therefore, you’re requested to mention that matter to the Registrar General or Chief Justice apprising of the emergent situation and get listed our LPA. We are sure that the LPA bench will understand the gravity of the situation; further aggravated with the fraud played with the High Court.
(12) In these circumstances it appears to us that though you accepted our brief for fee, but now you are afraid of the powerful lobby of Advocates and builder. If you continue to delay our matter on one excuse or other we will be constrained to approach the Bar Council. Please ensure registration of our LPA by bringing the issue into the notice of the Registrar General and Chief Justice. Sir, if you can’t do it; we at our own level can try to do it.”
The true copy of the letter written by the Petitioners is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-2.
Had the Division Bench issued Show Cause Notice to the Advocate he would have explained under what circumstances and under what exigency he was constrained to invoke powers of this Hon’ble Court by filing the LPA. The LPA was filed with the hope of safeguarding the lives of the thousands of citizens. If the Judiciary starts imposing cost on Advocates in this manner; it may amount to muzzling the voice of Advocates which will ultimately culminate into non-representation of clients.This is what is known as “lock-jaw” which practice by any authority whether administrative or judicial, has been deprecated by a Constitution Bench.[Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, 1978 (1) SCC 405 at SCC pp.436-437 at para 56] This is also a case where the Judiciary has clothed itself with the powers of Bar Council and punished the Advocate on the basis of conjectures and surmises without granting any opportunity of hearing to the Advocate, which attracts the mischief of Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and another, 1998 (4) SCC 409.
III. BECAUSE the Judgment in LPA has not at all dealt with the categorical Oral Application made by the Counsel for Applicants in terms of the Article 134-A of the Constitution of India, which reads:
“Every High Court, passing or making a judgment, decree, final order, or sentence, referred to in clause (1) of article 132 or clause (1) of article 133, or clause (1) of article 134,—
(a) may, if it deems fit so to do, on its own motion; and
(b) shall, if an oral application is made, by or on behalf of the party aggrieved, immediately after the passing or making of such judgment, decree, final order or sentence, determine, as soon as may be after such passing or making, the question whether a certificate of the nature referred to in clause (1) of article 132, or clause (1) of article 133 or, as the case may be, sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of article 134, may be given in respect of that case”
IV. BECAUSE the prayer (iii) in in CM No. 6632-6633 of 2017 in CWP No. 8408 of 2017 [Application under sub-article (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India] was “ (iii) Initiate process under Section – 340 Cr.P.C. against the Petitioners”therefore the applicants in CM 6632-6633 of 2017 in CWP No. 8408 of 2017 and LPA 740 of 2017 also enjoyed the status of informants in terms of 340 CrPC which status encompasses the Applicants represented by their Counsel, in terms of law laid down in Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India and others, 1992 (1) SCC 31. That the law of punishment by fine in such a scenario is categorically laid down in Abdul Hamid v. Ahmad Shah,AIR 1943 Lah 26 at AIR p.27 at para 2 that ‘any imposition of costs upon informants of offences against administration of justice is “without jurisdiction.”
5. That the errors of law apparent on the face of the record have left unanswered the questions of law of general public importance and interpretation of the Articles 226, 134-A and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. That the Applicant submits that there are sufficient grounds as stated in Para No. 3 to persuade this Hon’ble Court to review the order dated 15.5.2017 in L.P.A. No. 740 of 2017 and to pass appropriate order in the interest of justice.
PRAYER:-
It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
(i) Review the Order Dated: 15.5.2017 in L.P.A. No. 740 of 2017 for errors of law apparent on the face of the record, enumerated in the present Application, and/or
(ii) Dispose of the Oral Application made on 15.05.2017 by the Counsel for Petitioner in terms of the Article 134-A of the Constitution of India, and/or
(iii) Pass any other order which may be appropriate in the interest of justice in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case.
CHANDIGARH (PARDEEP KUMAR RAPRIA)
DATED: 30.05.2017 COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
No comments:
Post a Comment