The Allahabad High Court rejected the plea of Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Committee seeking identification of a person on whose application the Chief Justice has passed the administrative order to withdraw the cases from the earlier Bench.
A Single Bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi.
An application has been moved in the case on behalf of the petitioner to identify the applicant, on whose application filed on 27.07.2023, the Chief Justice has passed the administrative order dated 11.8.2023 to withdraw the cases from the earlier Bench.
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the identity of the applicant is necessary to be known before the hearing proceeds in the petitions, any further. A further prayer is made to defer the hearing of the petitions, till then.
The Court said that the reasons are contained in the administrative order of the Chief Justice dated 11.08.2023 for withdrawing the cases from the previous Court, which are extracted in the subsequent judicial order passed by the Court on 28.08.2023. It is apparent that the purpose of passing the order dated 28.08.2023 is to insulate the proceedings of these cases from procedural aberrations, noticed in the order itself, and thereby subserve the larger public interest of ensuring faith in the justice dispensation system.
So far as the application filed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side is concerned, the contents thereof have already been extracted in the order dated 28.08.2023. The order ensures that proceedings of the cases are held in accordance with the administrative order of the Chief Justice dated 16.12.2013, as interpreted by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amar Singh vs State of UP.
Identity of the applicant who highlighted the procedural impropriety in hearing of the writ petitions is not material. What is material and important is the sanctity of the court proceedings itself. The limited purpose served by the application dated 27.07.2023 is that the procedural impropriety arising in the proceedings got highlighted before the Chief Justice, on the administrative side, so that mandatory procedures for hearing of writ as per the Rules of the Court are complied with.
The Court further said that,
It is otherwise open for any party to apply for inspection of records of the writ proceedings and ascertain the identity of the applicant who filed the application dated 27.7.2023. Filing of an application on the judicial side or making of prayer to defer the hearing in the matters, for such reasons, appears to be wholly uncalled for.
Which party invited the attention of the Chief Justice to procedural impropriety in conduct of hearing or who moved the application are of little significance. These aspects ought to have been taken note of by the Registry on its own. However, as the case file itself was not restored to the concerned section, as was required in terms of the procedure settled, the office apparently could not secure compliance of necessary procedures for hearing of the cases. Now when correct facts are noticed and necessary orders have been obtained from the Chief Justice, on the administrative side, which is specified in the previous order of the Court dated 28.08.2023, there is no occasion for the Court not to proceed with the hearing of the cases.
“Facts, noted in the order of the Court dated 28.08.2023, regarding procedural impropriety in conduct of the cases are otherwise not disputed. The fact that there was no order of nomination for hearing these cases by the earlier Bench, as per roster, is also not disputed. The administrative order of the Chief Justice dated 16.12.2013, as also the Full Bench judgment interpreting the said order, and its applicability on the facts of these cases having not been doubted, there is no occasion for the petitioner to pray for deferment of the proceedings on the grounds urged in the application dated 18.09.2023. Consequently, the application dated 18.09.2023 is found to be bereft of any merit”, the Court observed while rejecting the petition.
The Court has fixed the next hearing of the petition on October 4, 2023.