To, June
19, 2015
The Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice,
Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.
Sub; Deliberate
attempt of Bench Fixing / Hunting by Registrar Judicial in Criminal Contempt No
1 of 2012.
Sir,
1. The
above mentioned CROCP against me is on a complaint made by J.Surya Kant. On
first date, the matter was listed before first puisne judge as per roster. Later
when matter was fixed for 23.7.2012, the roster changed to that of J Surya Kant.
Office put up a note Dt 20.7.2012 and solicited orders of then Acting CJ Jasbir
Singh as to;-
“whether the said case may be listed as per
roster.
OR
Nominate an H’ Division bench for listing the
above said case.
Office made no recommendation of any particular
judge and the choice was left to H’ Acting Chief Justice who ordered;
“DB headed by Justice SK Mittal”. Copy of order
is Annexure A.
Justice S K Mittal was then the first puisne
Judge.
2. Thereafter
H’ Chief Justice changed. Roster also changed. When case was listed for
29.8.2013, the roster of CROCP was that of J Hemant Gupta and J Fateh Deep
Singh. Since J Surya Kant was not in the roster to hear Criminal contempt, the
office again put up a note seeking orders of the then Chief Justice Sanjay
Kishan Kaul as under;-
‘x’ ‘whether
the (case) same might be listed as per roster.
OR
‘y’ The
same might be continued before H division bench presided over by Hon’ble
Justice Satish Kumar Mittal.”
Office as per norms/law made no recommendation
of any particular judge and choice was left to the Hon’ble Chief Justice who
ordered;
“Y”. Sd/- date 3.7.2013. Copy of noting and
order is Annexure B.
Inspite of the fact that J Surya kant was not
in the roster of criminal contempt, yet case was not listed as per roster but
before senior most judge (J. SK Mittal) after first puisne. First puisne judge was
earlier acting chief Justice who had passed earlier orders Dt 20.7.2012
Annexure A.
3. Thereafter
H’ Chief Justice changed. Roster also changed. When case was listed for
19.9.2014, roster of CROCP was that of J. S S Saron and J. Mrs Lisa Gill, J.
Rajive Bhalla and J Surinder Gupta. The office again put up the same note
seeking orders of the then Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Mohanta as under;-
‘x’ ‘whether
the (case) same might be listed as per roster.
OR
‘y’ The
same might be continued before H division bench presided over by Hon’ble
Justice Satish Kumar Mittal.”
“proposal as at ‘x’ or ‘y’ above is submitted
for approval” was stated by AO Judicial who works under Registrar Judicial
Sunil Choudhary. As per norms / law He did not made recommendation of any
particular option to the then H’ Acting Chief Justice who ordered;
“Y”. Sd/- Date 18.9.2014. Copy of noting and
order is Annexure C.
Meaning thereby that case was not listed as
per roster but was listed before first puisne Judge irrespective of the Roster.
4. When
case was listed for 16.12.2014, new acting chief justice had been nominated, Roster
had changed to that of J Jeyapaul and J Darshan Singh. Office put up same note;-
‘x’ ‘whether
the (case) same might be listed as per roster.
OR
‘y’ The
same might be continued before H division bench presided over by Hon’ble
Justice Satish Kumar Mittal.”
AO registrar judicial wrote “in view of order
Dt 18.9.2014
‘y’ may be approved. Case was not put up to
Chief Justice as nominated
acting chief justice had not taken charge, relying
on previous orders of then acting Chief Justice for listing the case before J
SK Mittal i.e. first puisne Judge were followed. Copy is Annexure D.
5. Case
was next listed for 23.3.2015. Acting Chief Justice had changed. Roster of
criminal contempt was that J. Jeyapaul and J Mrs RR Garg. Office put up same
note;-
‘x’ ‘whether
the (case) same might be listed as per roster.
OR
‘y’ The
same might be continued before H division bench presided over by Hon’ble
Justice Satish Kumar Mittal.”
This time throwing away all norms/law and
exceeding his jurisdiction, AO Judicial himself chose the option for the
hon’ble ACJ to accept when AO Judicial wrote;
‘x’ above may be approved”, which was
accepted. Annexure E
i) The
act of Registrar judicial in specifying which option is to be accepted by H’
ACJ, is beyond his jurisdiction and amounts to bench fixing / hunting.
ii) Perusal
of notings of last 3 years reveals that nowhere earlier the Registrar Judicial ever
made such a proposal for listing the matter before a specific Judge as was done
on 19.3.2015. This act amounts to bench fixing/hunting by O/o Registrar
judicial.
iii) By
selecting the bench, Registrar judicial took upon himself the powers of the H’
the chief Justice and for mere formality putting it before the H’ the Acting Chief
Justice for formal nod. AO or Registrar are nobody to fix or recommended any
specific bench before which any case is to be listed. Registrar Judicial wanted
the matter to be listed before J. Jeyapaul. This also explains why J Jeyapaul
took up the matter with extreme bias as mentioned in my letter Dt May 7, 2015.
J Jeyappaul happens to be junior to J Suryakant on whose complaint the CROCP is
initiated.
iv) Registrar
Judicial took the benefit of the situation that new acting chief justice is
from outside and didn’t knew the exact practice and procedure being followed by
this High Court and hence could fall prey to the machinations, ulterior motives
in fixing a bench of Judge Jeyapaul before which CROCP 1/12 could be listed.
The act of o/o Registrar Judicial is not bonafide and smacks of ulterior
motives/pressure and undue influence.
v) During
inspection of file, it was noticed that when Registrar Judicial put up the note
for accepting of his proposal only the notings dated 20.7.2012 were below his
notings Dt 19.3.2015. Other notings were not tagged together with notings dt
19.3.2015 or 20.7.2012. In casual glance orders of successive Chief Justices
were not found. It took me a awhile to locate other orders of successive chief
Justices which were after some other miscellaneous pages. It appears that there
was surreptitious attempt to hide orders of various Chief Justices on the file from
the present Acting Chief Justice.
In view of facts stated above it is prayed;
a) Case
CROCP 1/12 be listed before any Division Bench presided by any Judge senior to
Judge Surya Kant, though preferably/ideally both the Judges should be senior to
J Surya Kant.
b) Disciplinary
action be taken against Concerned official for his act of specifying the judge
before which case should be listed. Act amounted to bench hunting / fixing. He exceeded
his jurisdiction in his notings amounting to gross misconduct. Earlier also he
had made false notings as mentioned in my letter Dt May 14, 2015.
Kapil
Dev Aggarwal
CC; Registrar General P & H High Court on
17.8.2015.
Matter was put up only once before every new
A’/chief justice in the year 2012, 2013 and 2014 i.e. only 3 times in 3 years.
Now it is put up 3 times in one month before same CJ. Something is wrong. Registrar
has no authority to dictate/recommend to the H’ CJ which bench should hear a case.
He has no authority to treat the H’ ACJ as his rubber stamp. By doing so he has
ex-facie lowered the dignity of the office of H’ Chief Justice. This amounts to
criminal contempt of court for which necessary action be taken against Sunil
Choudhary.
Kapil Dev Aggarwal
No comments:
Post a Comment