Mumbai:
Complaint Has been filed against officers of Bombay High Court Staff for
obstruction to justice and not discharging their duty under directions of law.
Registrar judicial, Assistant registrar and filing clerks has been made
accused. The staff of bombay high court was not allowing party in person to
file any affidavit, applications in pending matters of Bombay High Court. It is
obstruction to justice and violation of article 14 and 21. In Past on 5 Sept
2019 Chief justice bench Mr Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Bharti Dangre passed
order to pay Rs 500000 as penalty and banned filing of petition if penalty was
not paid. Earlier also the CJ BHC asked party in person to withdraw all PILs in
open court in the interest of respondents. When he denied to withdraw PILs then
the bias judges put hefty penalty by suppressing facts and banned filing new
petition. After the Complaint to Supreme court the CJ Pradeep Nandrajog Changed
the PIL assignment to Justice SC Dharmadhikari bench who was impartial judge.
As per Supreme court order Parliament also can not violate the fundamental
rights and No person can be restricted to approach court. The Nirbhaya accuses
are also exhausting remedy before law and no ban has been imposed on them .
This is the case of judicial authoritarianism
against Supreme court orders.
Patna High Court,Karra
Parasuramaiah vs The State Of Bihar on 2 September, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous
Jurisdiction Case No.3659 of 2019
In
CRIMINAL
MISCELLANEOUS No.4117 of 2018
“…It must be remembered that it is the duty of every
member of the legal fraternity to ensure that the image of the judiciary is not
tarnished and its respectability eroded. The manner in which proceedings were
taken by the learned Judge in relation to the writ petition disposed of by a
Division Bench exposes a total lack of respect for judicial discipline.
Judicial authoritarianism is what the proceedings in the instant case smack of.
It cannot be permitted under any guise. Judges must be circumspect and
self-disciplined in the discharge of their judicial functions. The virtue of
humility in the Judges and a constant awareness that investment of power in
them is meant for use in public interest and to uphold the majesty of rule of
law, would to a large extent ensure self-restraint in discharge of all judicial
functions and preserve the independence of judiciary. It needs no emphasis to
say that all actions of a Judge must be judicious in character. Erosion of
credibility of the judiciary, in the public mind, for whatever reasons, is the
greatest threat to the independence of the judiciary. Eternal vigilance by the
Judges to guard against any such latent internal danger is, therefore,
necessary, lest we "suffer form self inflicted mortal wounds". We
must remember that the Constitution does not give unlimited powers to anyone
including the Judge of all levels…”
The Bombay High Court staff getting verbal
instructions from top person and banned
the petitioner to file IA in all the PILs for miscarriage of justice and
accidental slip of facts in orders as per provisions of Supreme court . To
benefit the various respondents the staff acted arbitrary . In the RTI reply
the PIO of BHC said that no circular , GR , Notification etc has been issued to
ban filing of petitioner . As per law
the circular has to be passed in respect of court order. Till date no High
Court banned any petitioner for filing any case across India. The accused staff
followed the verbal instructions and not allowed to exhaust remedy
available in Bombay High Court include review petition . The offence in
complaint of CRPC 156(3) are cognizable and attract punishment upto 3 years. As
per Laitha kumari Judgement the FIR is mandatory in cognizable offence.
Comments
Post a Comment