Punjab-Haryana High Court
N.Saravanan vs Union Of India And Others on 3 February, 2014
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CM Nos.16758-59 of 2013 in
RA No.456 of 2013 in
CWP No.22660 of 2012
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CM Nos.16758-59 of 2013 in
RA No.456 of 2013 in
CWP No.22660 of 2012
Date of Decision: 03.02.2014
N.Saravanan ..... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Gahlawat, Advocate,
for the applicant-respondents.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.(Oral)
This is a review application arising out of the order passed by this Court on 26th July, 2013. The petitioner came before this Court while he is still in prison, on conviction and sentence passed against him by the General Security Force Court, BSF. He is in jail since 8 years. His statutory appeal was pending for 7 months when he approached this Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction for directions.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that directions issued by this Court that the petitioner should be assisted by a counsel from the State Legal Services Authority, New Delhi is not tenable in view of S.117 and Rule 167 of the BSF Act and Rules. Learned counsel has read out both the provisions but I find in them no bar against a person aggrieved to be Mittal Manju 2014.02.07 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CM Nos.16758-59 of 2013 in RA No.456 of 2013 in CWP No.22660 of 2012 -2- represented by counsel or an authorized representative, particularly when the man is suffering jail in Trichy. What is intended is that the statutory appeal should be left to the BSF to decide without effective hearing and behind the back of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that hearing is not prescribed in the Section and Rule aforesaid.
The argument is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. Right of hearing is a fundamental rule of law.
This application for review is patently frivolous. Rules of natural justice have to be read into all statutory rules. If the intention of the BSF is to decide the statutory appeal without associating the petitioner then this review application deserves to be dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the UT State Legal Services Authority.
Ordered accordingly.
Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate appears at this stage for the non- applicant/petitioner and submits that there has been enough delay on the part of the respondent-BSF in deciding the statutory appeal and then by coming to this Court in the present review petition. She seeks a time bound direction to the BSF to decide the statutory appeal within a reasonable time.
The request is fair and reasonable and sufficient in the review jurisdiction of this Court to further order that the statutory appeal will be heard within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order after giving effective opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner even if it means that the statutory Appellate Authority holds proceedings in Mittal Manju 2014.02.07 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CM Nos.16758-59 of 2013 in RA No.456 of 2013 in CWP No.22660 of 2012 -3- Trichy Jail. The non-applicant/petitioner may avail services of counsel from the State Legal Services Authority available at Trichy in case proceedings are held there, or accordingly at New Delhi.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 03.02.2014 manju Mittal Manju 2014.02.07 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh