Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

WAS SHRI KULDIP NARAYAN'S INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, SEEKING INTERVENTION OF HIGH COURT IN A PIL, SUSTAINABLE? CAN A COURT MAKE AN INTERIM ORDER ON AN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION IF THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIVE APPLICATION AND IF THE COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO FINALLY GRANT A RELIEF, WHICH THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION SEEKS, CAN IT GRANT ANY RELIEF, WHICH IS INTERIM IN NATURE?

44. It may be noted and noted with some concern that Shri Lalan Prasad Singh chose not to move the Court himself seeking any relief, much less in the PIL, but his son moved the said interlocutory application and sought a personal relief for his father. This, again, I find curious and not permissible. No hesitation, therefore, in holding, with, however, all humility and respect, that the said interlocutory application, in the second PIL, was wholly misconceived in law and not maintainable and I hold accordingly. I. A. No. 9094 of 2014, filed by Mr. Amitesh Chandra, is dismissed summarily. WHETHER CONSTITUTION OF THIS FULL BENCH IS CORRECT AND VALID: SHADOW OF JUDICIAL PROPRIETY

75. Firstly, I would like to note that the plea of bias or likelihood of bias is a personal plea to be raised by a litigant at the earliest opportunity. Here, I may specifically note that though Shri Kuldip Narayan filed an interlocutory application seeking personal relief for stay of his suspension order and its quashment and, as noted earlier, he also filed an interlocutory application questioning the legality of the reference to Full Bench and was represented by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Y. V. Giri, there is, nowhere, a whisper with regard to likelihood of bias as against any Member constituting the Full Bench. In this perspective, it is curious as to why and how Shri Prasoon Sinha, as an independent Advocate, could raise such a plea of likelihood of bias at all. It must be remembered that an Advocate is first an officer of the Court. He is never permitted to identify himself with the cause or the case of any litigant. No Advocate, at large, can intervene in any proceeding inter party. Obviously, the interlocutory application, moved by Mr. Patna High Court CWJC No.8152 of 2013 dt.30-01-2015 Prasoon Sinha, in his individual capacity, lacks bona fide. As rightly submitted by learned Advocate General and learned Principal Additional Advocate General, it is only to scandalize and embarrass the Court so that this Full Bench does not hear the matter. One must remember that the PIL means a Public Interest Litigation and not a personal interest litigation or a publicity interest litigation. Courts cannot permit Public Interest Litigation to be degenerated into either a personal interest litigation or a publicity interest litigation. It is totally an unprofessional and unethical conduct for a lawyer of the standing of Mr. Prasoon Sinha.

On 16.12.2014 Principal Additional Advocate General produced the concerned Government file before the Bench, as was directed under order dated 15.12.2014, whereafter counsel for Sri Kuldip Narayan and Principal Additional Advocate General were heard, Government files and copy of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in C.W.J.C. No. 20570 of 2012 on 15.12.2014 in the forenoon was retained by the Bench and final order on the aforesaid Interlocutory Application filed by Sri Kuldip Narayan reserved with further direction that the interim order passed by the Bench on 15.12.2014 shall continue until final order is passed on the Interlocutory Application.