Court No. – 28
Case :- WRIT – A No. – 20121 of 2006
Petitioner :- Rajendra Pratap Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- P.C. Chauhan,P.S.Chauhan,S.P. Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon’ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents
No.2 to 4. This Court by order dated 13.4.2006 had directed the
respondents to explain the term “ससाधसारण ववेतनमसान “. The counter
affidavit has not explained the aforesaid term. A supplementary
affidavit shall be filed by the respondents explaining the terms
“ससाधसारण ववेतनमसान “.
Put up this matter on 24.09.2018 in the additional cause list.
Prima facie, the order appears to be in violation of the orders
passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1980 of
1991 (Rajendra Pratap Singh Vs. Committee of Management,
Smt. Ramwanti Devi Bench Madhav, Higher Secondary School,
Navgaon, District-Mirzapur and others on 16.9.2005. The Court
has accorded utmost urgency to the matter in view of the prima
facie violation of orders passed by this Court.
Order Date :- 11.9.2018
Ashish Tripathi
An application under article 32 of the constitution of the India.
To
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India/ companion judges
Apex court of Judicature in India.
New Delhi, India
Sir, no interim order has been passed in the matter and petitioner is pursuing the case since 2006, attorney of the petitioner could not attend the case on 17-04-2019 because of illness and prayer of adjournment overlooked and 13 years old case being pursued by petitioner was arbitrarily dismissed without considering the merit of case. Whether canon of law allows such practice?
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that following judgment was delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 17-April-2019 in the writ number-20121 year 2006. According to case status as follows, if the case is disposed, then litigant is curious to know the reason how the court reached on the conclusion to dismiss the case by overlooking the orders of the same court passed earlier in the matter. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of the following notes / orders passed Hon’ble High court of judicature at Allahabad
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that considerable portion of public exchequer is being spent on the judiciary so accountability of its members and transparency in its function must be ensured by the accountable public functionaries.
Dismiss other than merit(DD/Non Prosec./Abated) Dismiss in Default/Non procedural security/contrary to public policy
Right to reason is the indispensable part of sound judicial system.
Hon’ble Sir please take a glance of historic judgement delivered by apex court of India. Accountability must be ensured in order to achieve good governance.
Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) observed “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration”. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed: “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice”. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at”. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The “inscrutable face of a sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that What is being done by Advocate and Judge in the case only they know, party does not know but consequent will directly affect the party neither judge nor advocate in particular writ petitioner? What a joke faith of the common people is still alive in the court because he is not allowed to watch the court proceedings.
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that gate pass can be only available either through staffs of court if advocate may seek. Which implies that a petitioner can easily be deprived from attending the case proceedings which is his fundamental right. Most surprising is that same is being done by the chief justice High court of judicature at Allahabad.
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that justice seeker is the essential component/pole of the case instituted in any court of law by him and deprive justice seeker from attending the case instituted by him which law of land justify it? Why High court of judicature interested in proceedings by not allowing petitioners or their credible relatives?
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that to provide security to the judicial members ,Advocates and litigants itself is the obligatory duty of the state government under the monitoring of central government through His Excellency. It is unfortunate that by taking the recourse of issue of security , protectors of constitutional rights of citizens depriving the litigants from participating the court proceedings.
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Diary Number
Applicant Name
Petition date Diary No.
Year
/SCI/PIL(E)/
Diary No.-20477/SCI/PIL(E)/2019
Application Date-16-04-2019
Received On-29-04-2019
Applicant Name-YOGI MP SINGH
Address-SUREKAPURAM JABALPUR ROAD MIRZAPUR
State-UTTAR PRADESH
Action Taken
UNDER PROCESS |
Sir, no interim order has been passed in the matter and petitioner is pursuing the case since 2006, attorney of the petitioner could not attend the case on 17-04-2019 because of illness and prayer of adjournment overlooked and 13 years old case being pursued by petitioner was arbitrarily dismissed without considering the merit of case. Which canon law allows such practice?
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that following judgment was delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 17-April-2019 in the writ number-20121 year 2006. According to case status as follows, if the case is disposed, then litigant is curious to know the reason how the court reached on the conclusion to dismiss the case by overlooking the orders of the same court passed earlier in the matter.
Where is justice in this largest democracy in the world? Whether it is not the mockery of the justice system.
Accountability must be ensured in order to achieve good governance.
Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court.