Categories: Other Courts

Rail Dawa Bar Association: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea and Imposes Cost Of ₹50k On The Lawyer’s Association

FacebookFacebookTwitterTwitterEmailEmailWhatsAppWhatsAppLinkedInLinkedInShareShare

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plea filed by Rail Dawa Bar Association and also imposes a cost of Rs.50,000 on the lawyer’s association.

A single bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh was hearing a petition filed by the Rail Dawa Bar Association, Lucknow, asking the Central Government to establish a fair and transparent selection procedure for the appointment of the Chairman, Vice Chairman (Judicial), Vice Chairman (Technical), Member (Judicial), and Members (Technical) in the Railway Clams Tribunal.

It also challenged the re-appointment of Justice (Retd.) K.S. Ahluwalia as chairperson of the Railway Claims Tribunal.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Ashok Pandey contended that Justice (Retd.) K.S. Ahluwalia was not eligible or competent for re-appointment and that correct procedure was not followed in the appointment process.

The Court reviewed the parties’ representations and noted that the language employed in the rejoinder clearly demonstrated that the objective was to merely raise unfounded and scandalous allegations.

The filing of the writ petition, according to Justice Pratibha M. Singh, was a malicious attempt to smear the incumbent’s reputation and a gross abuse of process, and that the process of appointment had been well explained by the Union in its counter-affidavits, and that none of the grounds raised in the petition were made out for setting aside the re-appointment.

“In the opinion of this Court, the entire attempt in this petition on behalf of the lawyers’ association is to raise aspersions against the duly constituted Tribunal. Accordingly, considering the nature of submissions made in Court and in the pleadings, the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that any attempt to vilify Judges, without any reasonable basis, be it Judges of Constitutional Courts, Trial Courts or judges presiding over Quasi-Judicial bodies cannot be permitted,” the bench stated.

 

Nunnem Gangte

Recent Posts

‘Very Disturbing’: Supreme Court On Violence Over Anti-Waqf Law Protests

The Supreme Court on Wednesday voiced concern over recent outbreaks of violence linked to protests…

6 hours ago

Supreme Court To Hear Pleas Challenging Waqf Amendment Act On April 17

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday stated that it will continue hearing pleas challenging…

6 hours ago

UP Court Issues Non-Bailable Warrant Against Mukhtar Ansari’s Wife Afsa Ansari

A court in UP's Mau has issued a non-bailable warrant against Afsa Ansari, the wife…

7 hours ago

MUDA Scam: Case Karnataka HC Issues Notices To CM Siddaramaiah

 The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday issued notices to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, his wife Parvathi…

7 hours ago

Karnataka High Court Orders Crackdown On Clinics Run By Unqualified ‘Doctors’

The Karnataka High Court has raised serious concerns over the rising number of unauthorized medical…

7 hours ago

Sanjeev Khanna Recommends Appointment Of Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai As The Next CJI

Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai is poised to take over as the 52nd Chief Justice of…

9 hours ago