Saturday, July 11, 2020
Follow us on
BREAKING NEWS
हरियाणा विद्यालय शिक्षा बोर्ड की दसवीं कक्षा की परीक्षा उत्तीर्ण करने वाले सभी छात्रों को हरियाणा के उपमुख्यमंत्री दुष्यंत चौटाला ने हार्दिक शुभकामनाएं दीविकास दुबे की पत्नी ऋचा के भाई राजू खुल्लर को भी रिहा करेगी STFकोरोना के उपचार के लिए Itolizumab का हो सकेगा इस्तेमाल, DCI ने दी मंजूरीकानपुरः गैंगस्टर विकास दुबे के गांव में तैनात की गई RAFदिल्ली के राज्य विश्वविद्यालयों की परीक्षा रद्द, पास किए जाएंगे सभी छात्रः मनीष सिसोदियाजम्मू कश्मीरः कुपवाड़ा के नौशेरा सेक्टर में LOC पर घुसपैठ की कोशिश नाकाम, दो आतंकी ढेरगैंगस्टर विकास दुबे की संपत्ति की जांच शुरू, ED ने मांगे आपराधिक गतिविधियों और सहयोगियों के विवरणप्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी के 'मन की बात' कार्यक्रम का 26 जुलाई को होगा प्रसारण
Haryana

Justice Ranjit moves SC on judge’s ‘conduct’

January 14, 2020 06:21 AM

COURTESY TOI JAN 14
TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Chandigarh:

Retired Justice Ranjit Singh has questioned the “conduct” of Justice Amit Rawal, who was recently transferred to Kerala high court from Punjab and Haryana high court, in passing an order on his complaint seeking action against senior Punjab politicians Sukhbir Singh Badal and Bikramjit Majithia.


Justice Singh made these assertions before the SC in his appeal challenging Justice Rawal’s November 8, 2019, order.

Justice Singh has submitted before the SC that his counsel had expressed apprehension about the “mode and manner” in which Justice Rawal was proceeding with the matterand how despite being under transfer, he had shown undue haste in deciding the matter. Taking cognizance, a division bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Ravindra Bhat of the Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to Sukhbir Badal and Bikramjit Majithia seeking their response on the issue.

‘IN HASTE’
Retired judge Ranjit Singh claimed that Justice Amit Rawal had decided his complaint against Sukhbir Badal and Bikram Majithia in "undue haste".

Ex-judge: Counsel not heard by HC judge

In his appeal, Justice Singh, who had retired from Punjab and Haryana high court, also submitted that even his counsel was not heard by the high court judge before reserving the case for order.

“Hearing before the HC came to an abrupt end once the transfer order of the concerned judge (Justice Rawal) was made known to him in court during the course of arguments. Thereafter, the matter came to be reserved for orders; and eventually dismissed in a haste and without there being any closure to the oral arguments being advanced by my counsel. Because the conduct of the concerned judge of the high court was not above board during the course of the proceedings in question; and on that ground alone – the impugned Judgment deserves to be set aside,” Justice Singh submitted in his appeal to the apex court.

Justice Singh also mentioned in his appeal that he had informed the then acting chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana high court about the conduct of the judge.

On November 8, 2019, Justice Amit Rawal of the Punjab and Haryana high court had dismissed Justice Ranjit's complaint holding that plea of Justice Ranjit Singh was not maintainable after August 31, 2018, when he ceased to be the chairman of the commission that probed the sacrilege incidents.

The plain and simple reading of the provisions of Commission of Inquiry Act 1952, leaves no manner of doubt that the provisions of Section 10-A can only be invoked by the chairman or any other member during tenure and not of thereafter as the remedy lies elsewhere, the high court had observed. Challenging these orders, Justice Ranjit Singh (Retd) has submitted before the Supreme Court that HC had failed to appreciate that the offence was committed and was complete when the commission was still in existence

Have something to say? Post your comment